Men’s Men, Women’s Women, and Kid Kustomers

In “Men’s Men and Women’s Women,” Steve Craig illustrates through example four different angles of targeting advertisers use to appeal to various potential customers by gender. In “Kid Kustomers,” Eric Schlosser takes the reader systematically through the advertisers’ thought processes when targeting children with commercials. The former uses his four examples as the layout for his essay; the latter takes a logical approach, explaining each point along the way. Both produce quotations from experts that support their point of view and demonstrate emotional appeal, although to varying degrees. Most importantly, each author devises a rhetorical strategy to manipulate the reader into accepting his points of view.

The first—and most obvious—variation between Craig’s and Schlosser’s essays is the overall layout of their ideas. Craig divides the bulk of his essay into four classifications of commercial, each “selected to provide an example of how men and women are portrayed to themselves and to the other sex” (204). Accordingly, he provides examples of commercials that fit the titular “Men’s Men” and “Women’s Women” categories, as well as “Men’s Women” and “Women’s Men.” Craig introduces the idea by explaining the concept of demographic targeting in terms of gender, and then makes the claim that “program producers and schedulers must consider the target audience needs of their clients (the advertisers) in creating a television program line up” (203). This leads into his four classifications, each with a selected commercial that exemplifies it and then supporting facts. Each section is independent of the others, so that each commercial proves itself on its own merits.

On the other hand, Schlosser’s “Kid Kustomers” presents its points in a logical fashion. Schlosser explains and supports each point and then utilizes a transitional statement to carry readers into the next point for the length of the essay. The essay commences by explaining why advertising targets children in the first place. The first transitional statement explains that the “aim of most children’s advertising is straightforward: Get kids to nag their parents and nag them well” (223). After explaining the different forms a child’s nagging can take, Schlosser moves us to the next point by explaining that “[b]efore trying to affect children’s behavior, advertisers have to learn about their tastes” (224). He discusses the methods used to accomplish this, ending with the Internet. The final section is once again introduced by transitioning in, claiming that “[d]espite the growing importance of the Internet, television remains the primary medium for children’s advertising” (225).

Despite Craig’s and Schlosser’s dissimilar designs, they both bring numerous experts and statistics to the table. Craig’s introduction begins citing ideas in the very first paragraph, and the text leading up to his analysis of the four commercials includes a lengthy block quote that provides an example of “gender portrayals of characters” (203). He also provides insight through his own research of December 1990 that “supports the argument that advertisers also structure the gender images in their commercials to match the expectations and fantasies of their intended audience,” after which he starts providing percentage statistics (203). Three out of four of his examples contain more statistics from his own research along with block quotes cited from various industry experts: Michael Messner, Phillipe Nicolas, and Rosalind Coward. Where he references his own research, he mentions percentages of commercials that fit his current point. For example: “My findings, however, indicated that while only 3% of the voice-overs during weekend sports were by women announcers, 16% of those during daytime were” (210). Oddly, his final example, “Women’s Men,” stands out as weaker than the rest with a lack of any supporting statistics or quotes whatsoever.

The experts of “Kid Kustomers” are just as plentiful. Schlosser begins with survey results from the “Journal of the American Medical Association,” and then introduces James U. McNeal, who Schlosser tells us is “considered America’s leading authority on marketing to children” (223). After providing the reader with McNeal’s expertise, the author immediately drops names of developmental psychologists and theorists Erik Erikson and Jean Piaget, followed by the field of study specialized in by “the president of Youth Market System Consulting and the author of What Kids Buy and Why,” Dan S. Acuff (223). The final stretch of Schlosser’s essay focuses on regulation of the advertising industry, and as such, brings forward information gathered from federal investigations and the Federal Trade Commission, specifically the testimony of Michael Pertschuk, then-chairman. Schlosser states that Chairman Pertschuk “argued that children need to be shielded from advertising that preys upon their immaturity,” revealing the apprehensive feelings the government had regarding this issue (225).

“Men’s Men and Women’s Women” and “Kid Kustomers” each employ emotional appeals; however, the latter applies it much more liberally. In “Men’s Men and Women’s Women,” Craig generally stays neutral in his analysis, using the aforementioned statistics and experts to support his thesis. However, upon closer examination, Craig attempts to harness the emotion that is built into any gender-divided issue by subtly pointing out what is “wrong” with each of his example commercials. In the “Men’s Men” Acura commercial, Craig strongly states that it “acts to reinforce male fantasies in an environment of clear masculinity and male domination” (206). The “Men’s Women” Miller commercial has a similar declaration: “When women do appear in men’s commercials, they seldom challenge the primary masculine fantasy” (207). There are readers who may interpret that with a sense of “wrongness” or indignation. Craig speaks strongly enough to evoke an emotional response without using obviously biased language.

Even if readers do not take issue with the advertiser’s view of the male-targeted commercials, Craig uses the women’s ads to further illustrate the perceived gender gap: “Her [the woman’s woman’s] need is a common one in women’s commercials produced by a patriarchal society—the desire to attain and maintain her physical attractiveness” (209). Craig seems to believe this emotional effect is strong enough to stand its own, for, as mentioned before, the “Women’s Men” section contains no cited statistics or expert testimony; instead Craig describes the details that makes this commercial “a 30-second romance novel” (211). The final few sentences of the essay finally give Craig’s subtle approach at manipulating the reader against gender targeting away:

Betty Friedan’s comments of 1963 are still valid. Those “deceptively simple, clever, outrageous ads and commercials” she wrote of are still with us. If anything, they have become more subtle and insidious. The escape from their snare is through a better understanding of gender and the role of mass culture in defining it. (212)

Here, Craig abandons his seemingly neutral syntax for words filled with negative connotation: “insidious” and “escape from their snare” are by no means neutral statements.

Whereas Craig utilizes only subtle emotional appeals—until his final sentences—in his essay, Schlosser infuses “Kid Kustomers” with them from beginning to end. Schlosser’s first paragraph details ad agencies with “sweet-sounding names” that “scrutinize and pursue” America’s children, willing to target children with their brand “before they can recognize their own name” (222). His second paragraph hints at the danger of this, quoting a study that found “nearly all of America’s six-year-olds could identify Joe Camel, who was just as familiar to them as Mickey Mouse” (223). A direct link between a cigarette spokes-camel and Mickey Mouse is a big flashing sign that is an obvious attempt at provoking an emotional response. He adds to it, citing another study that found Budweiser ads to be the kids’ favorite advertisement (223).

Schlosser chooses words that deliberately shed a negative light on the activities of advertising agencies studying children. Take the following passage:

[Market researchers] analyze children’s artwork, hire children to run focus groups, stage slumber parties and then question children into the night. They send cultural anthropologists into homes, stores, fast food restaurants, and other places where kids like to gather, quietly and surreptitiously observing the behavior of prospective customers. (224)

Schlosser’s choice of the phrases “stage slumber parties” and “quietly and surreptitiously observing” creates images of advertisers tricking children into answering questions and spying on them for their research. In the particular paragraph from whence the above passage comes, the author repeats the word “they” with an almost conspiratorial tone: they “organize,” “[t]hey analyze” and “stage,” “they send cultural anthropologists into homes,” “[t]hey study the fantasy lives of young children,” and finally “they apply the findings in advertisements and product designs” (224).

Later in “Kid Kustomers,” Schlosser points out that in 1998, “89 percent requested personal information from kids,” a statistic aimed to reflect today’s privacy fears, especially of parents (225). He quotes the McDonald’s website as claiming Ronald McDonald as “the ultimate authority in everything.” Today, with the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, this does not happen, but Schlosser seems to make a powerfully emotional implication: the advertisers still would do it, if they were not legally barred from doing so. Continuing along the point of regulation, Schlosser’s word choice again plays a role in inciting emotional responses from readers: a ban against children’s advertising was “supported” by various groups consisting of parents, teachers, pediatricians, and others, but was “attacked” by a list of groups associated with broadcasting and children’s product manufacturers (225). In a phrase added only to cause political tension, Schlosser takes pain to point out that the ban was defeated when the FTC dropped it in April 1981, “three months after the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan” (225). He provides no link to associate this seemingly useless piece of information with the ban, but one could guess at its implied statement: the election of Reagan caused a reversal in policy that made the FTC back down.

In the final paragraph, Schlosser ends on an emotional plea for the reader to consider. He gives statistic after statistic about how much advertising is being aimed at children: how much is on television, and how much television children watch. In a given year, “[the typical American child] watches more than thirty thousand TV commercials” (226). Schlosser wraps up with his final statistic: “About one-quarter of American children between the ages of two and five have a TV in their room” (226). In a roundabout way, Schlosser places at least a part of the blame on the American parent: out of all the statistics given, the statistic about the TV is the most materialistic. It can be difficult to see and count just how much television a child watches, but having a television set in the child’s room is easier to qualify: there is, or there is not. Schlosser seems to paint the television in the room as part of the problem, and if a reader has a child of that age, the parent may instinctively think about whether they are part of the problem.

“Men’s Men and Women’s Women” and “Kid Kustomers” have differing layouts, but otherwise utilize some of the same rhetorical techniques in varying amounts. Steve Craig classifies his evidence into four categories, and Eric Schlosser builds his thesis with one point leading into the next, but they both point to external experts—and in Craig’s case, to his own research—to provide credibility and statistics that validate their work. Both apply emotional appeal: one subtly, one blatantly. Whatever the technique, the end goal of both essays is the same: to manipulate the reader into believing the act of advertisers targeting certain demographics such as gender or young age can have a harmful effect on society.

Craig, Steve. "Men’s Men and Women’s Women." 1992. Signs of Life in the U.S.A.: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. By Sonia Maasik and J. Fisher Solomon. 6th ed. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. 202-13. Print.

Schlosser, Eric. "Kid Kustomers." 2001. Signs of Life in the U.S.A.: Readings on Popular Culture for Writers. By Sonia Maasik and J. Fisher Solomon. 6th ed. New York, NY: Bedford/St. Martins, 2009. 222-26. Print.