There is a quite a shocking difference in both the ads that are posted above. Even though this is the same campaign that ran at the same time, both pictures take a completely different side. It is clear that they were trying to target different genders in each add promising the other one some sort of dominance or authority, if they take part in their challenge. They use the need to dominate to draw in their audience knowing that using diction like "rule" and "first" will attract people with the need to gain power and be in charge, ultimately coming up on top. If these ads were to be separated it would be very easy to come to the conclusion that these ads were using sexist strategies when in reality they are just appealing to their target audience. The men’s slogan, “One more thing for men to rule,” is juxtaposed with the women’s slogan, “Ladies first. Men second.” While both ads are attracting the need to dominate the ad directed towards men can be considered as pointing to the frequent dominance of men beyond this challenging Nike ad.
For me, this ad campaign was a very weird choice. I find it really interesting that Nike chose to separate and pit men and women against each other in this campaign, rather than using a more inclusive slogan on both ads. I can see that they aim to appeal to the competitive side of their audience, but I cannot understand why they wouldn't structure their ad in a way that wasn't so negative.
ReplyDeleteOverall, I agree with your points. I agree that this appeals to the need to dominate and I agree with your comments and opinions of these ads. However, I do believe that your paragraph could be structured better as the middle section becomes a little confusing.