Athletes as Sexual Objects in Advertising - Research Paper Example

The motto that “sex sells” is cliché in a modern culture that believes anyone could advertise a product or service effectively, just by putting a scantily clad woman beside it. Although sex is a recurring theme through advertisements today, the notion that it is the only thing that sells is categorically false. Nevertheless, the use of sex is pervasive throughout advertising, but only because the consumer market for ad consumption demands the use of sex. In large part, viewing sex-charged images is preferred over viewing other kinds of emotionally evocative sorts of images. Especially in the area of sports, this dependence on the use of sex to sell products is inescapable; viewers are constantly faced with images of sexy male and sexy female athletes as “spokespeople” for products both totally related and totally unrelated to their respective sports. In many ways, resorting to these athletes as sexually ideal spokesmen and spokeswomen for products is a cop-out for real, targeted advertising. Rather than saying “sex sells” anything, especially sports, it may be more apt to say that “sports sells” with reference to sex. Society has come far from the Victorian sensibilities of the 19th century, which demanded that females be covered from neck to ankle. In the 1970s, the introduction of new social freedoms for women led to a new right to use her body as she saw fit for sport, advertisement, and sex. Unfortunate pushbacks against these new expressions of feminism have led to confusion about what is acceptable and what is excessive in terms of female sexuality in sport. For instance, Olympic volleyball was recently dismissed as a shallow attempt by some to gain exposure in the annual Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue (Lopiano). This inappropriate criticism fails to recognize the difference between sports for sports sake and sports for sex’s sake. There is a clear difference between these two motivations, which is increasingly difficult to identify, especially with the pervasiveness of male and female athletes being used as sex objects in the popular media’s visual and print advertisements. A prime example of exploitation of female athletes in the media is Anna Kournikova, who reached the height of her fame in 2000 with numerous endorsement contacts and a cover article in the June 2000 edition of Sports Illustrated. Instead of a more traditional piece on Kournikova, the magazine published her article with a cheesecake layout, which critics disapproved of as promoting the stereotype of women as sex objects. Kournikova, whose athletics accomplishments even at that time were modest, ultimately became more famous and more recognizable than any other female athlete, simply by virtue of her beauty (Stamler). The manner in which her fame and beauty overshadowed her sport ability raised the question of the degree to which society really takes women’s sports seriously: that if a woman with relatively little success in the sport can achieve far more than an accomplished athlete, how important really is female sports like tennis and volleyball? Anna Kournikova provided the paradigmatic case of sports for sex’s sake in her endorsement deals. This question of intent in an advertisement is an important ethical consideration (Lopiano). If, for instance, the infamous Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue puts an athletic uniform on an otherwise naked model, the intent of that advertisement cannot be other than to sell sports by first selling sex. A major factor in the growth of this strategy (selling sports by selling sex) is the growth of a system of corporate sponsorship that exists to generate public interest in female athletes. And to appeal to a society that, either consciously or subconsciously, sees the ideal female athlete body as a sex object, advertisers utilize that physical object. Depending on the product being sold, whether it is Charles Schwab financial advising or Adidas sports apparel, there is always a market for sex. For advocates of women and female athletes, the responsibility lies with consumers to distinguish between ethical and exploitative forms of using female athletes in advertising (Lopiano). According to the research conducted by Soley and Kurzbard (1986), the amount of sexual content in magazine advertisements remained approximately constant between 1964 and 1984; however, the explicitness of those sexual images did increase by quite a margin. Sexual illustrations, for instance, became more over and there was a greater reliance on visual sexual cues, as opposed to verbal cues. Additionally, female models in these advertisements were far more likely than male models to be scantily clad and/or nude. Soley and Kurzbard conducted their research to provide an analysis of the sexual advertisements between two culturally very different time periods, but based on their conclusions society’s attitudes toward sex have changed only in the degree to which sexual images are acceptable, not in the amount to which those sexual cues are present. This suggests that sex in advertisements is not a novel phenomenon, but that the phenomenon has only recently become interwoven with female sports, which largely did not exist prior to the 1970s. Another interesting conclusion from Soley and Kurzbard (1986) is the fact that general-interest magazines saw a marked increase in sexually-oriented ads through the time period studied, in contrast with women’s and men’s magazines that stayed relatively constant. This indicates that the cliché “sex sells” only applies when one has no definite or concrete target audience in mind. When advertisers print something for a general-interest magazine, there is a desire to reach a general audience and not a specific gender demographic. Thus, if sexually-oriented advertisements found their way into general-interest magazines more often, this implies a greater lack of directionality to the sex-themed advertisements through time (Soley and Kurzbard). Between 1964 and 1984, women’s sports took on greater popularity (Stamler). Further research could investigate the link between the growth and increasing corporate sponsorship of female sports, and the increase in sexually-oriented advertisements in print. The marketability of female athletes, however, does raise one important point about the growing equality between women and men. As Jackie Thomas of Nike Corporation once said, “Endorsement payments are based on market value, whether its a man or a woman” (Stamler). This means, of course, that athlete spokeswomen are paid on par with athlete spokesmen; what differs between them, however, is the exposure which they can give the products they are trying to sell. Male sports are still regarded as superior to female sports for a number of reasons, and so a female athlete can never hope to make as much as a male athlete by endorsements alone (Stamler). For this reason, among others, a female athlete may resort to using her body as a sex object in such advertisements as necessary. This objectification of the female body in advertisements for sports-unrelated products, like Charles Schwab financial advising, represents a way for endorsers to capture the highest effect for the money paid to the athlete. For example, a company like Charles Schwab adds an extra dimension of appeal to their advertisement with a glamorous athlete compared to an accomplished but less beautiful athlete. Although this makes financial sense for the advertiser, it is still a case of using the spokeswoman simply for her good looks, which is set apart from her accomplishments as an athlete. These points apply to an equal degree to male athletes as well. When an American athlete ascends to a position of cultural import, attention tends to shift away from his sports achievements to his personal life and his body. For instance, when Joe Namath appeared in pantyhose on a commercial on national television, the intended audience was not specific. Instead, the ad was set to appeal to a general audience of women and men, both of whom were receptive to the humor of a macho football star in ladies’ underwear. But the ad had little relevance to Joe Namath; it meant only to use his body for the purpose of creating a laugh, and thereby selling a product. According to a recent study published by Daniels (2009), performance athletes promoted less self-objectification among girls and young women. When compared to categories of sexualized athletes, sexualized models, and nonsexualized models, performance athletes encouraged ideals of accomplishment in girls that was not achieved through the other categories of images (Daniels). Thus, it seems for young girls, the most effective use of female athletes in advertisements might be the use of performance athletes—without sexualized imagery—to promote products for that audience. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether advertisers actually utilize this strategy to sell products to adolescent girls and college-aged women. Instead, sexualized athletes and models occur in all kinds of advertisements intended for a general audience, which is a result discovered by Soley and Kurzbard (1986). Daniels (2009) recommends more images of performance athlete images in the mainstream media to reduce self-objectification in young women. One critic agrees, writing, “We all have a responsibility to become educated so we know where the line between ethical and exploitive is drawn” (Lopiano). The cliché phrase that “sex sells” applies only to those products that are not desirable without a cheap advertising appeal; a more appropriate phrase when it comes to advertising sports is that “sports sells”. Without a foundation of sports achievement and an active audience, there would be no use for the sexualized male and female objects of advertising. Using athletes as objects, as do many advertisements in the case studies above, ultimately hurts society, the sports to which those athletes belong, and the advertisers themselves. In other words, employing an athlete as an object hurts the public’s image of that individual as a strong, independent, virtuous figure upon which the advertisement hopes to cling. Instead, the athlete is reduced to a physical specimen worth only the value of the product he or she sells. Advertising of these individuals exists because people admire their achievements and their strength, not their ability to be spokespeople. Works Cited Daniels, Elizabeth A. "Sex Objects, Athletes, and Sexy Athletes." Journal of Adolescent Research 24:4 (2009): 399-422. Lopiano, Donna. "Swimsuits, Sex Objects and Todays Female Athlete." 2008. Womens Sports Foundation. 2010 . Soley, Lawrence and Gary Kurzbard. "Sex in Advertising: A Comparison of 1964 and 1984 Magazine Advertisements." Journal of Advertising 15:3 (1986): 46-54. Stamler, Bernard. "Advertising: Women athletes gain fame but Madison Avenue isnt buying." 2000. bnet. 2010 . Read More