
Ad Report Card: The Wrong Kind of Stupid
Posted Monday, July 3, 2000, at 12:41 PM ETIt would be difficult to do a recurring feature on advertising without addressing stupidity somehow, so this week's "Ad Report Card" tackles the subject directly: A current series of ads from Reebok and an online retailer called Finish Line provides the ideal canvass. These ads are stupid--intentionally stupid, turning on the actions of cartoonishly stupid characters. This in and of itself is not necessarily a misstep, because stupidity has been a monstrous force in popular culture for the better part of a decade now. Or maybe longer. In any case, there are three of these stupid ads, apparently crafted specifically to play off the CBS series Survivor, and you can view all three at a tie-in Web site. At the site, click on the appropriate button to see "Poison Oak," "Snake Bite," or "Realy [sic] Hungry." You can use either the QuickTime or the RealPlayer plug-in.
The ads: All three ads are pretty dumb, but I'll focus mostly on the one called "Snake Bite." Like all the spots, it revolves around a particular pair of stupid young guys. Buddies, I assume. One tall and one short, in the classic style. They're hiking somewhere, and Tall suggests a shortcut. Stupid move! A few steps into the tall grass and Short is snakebit! "I'm vulture bait," he exclaims, stupidly, while hopping about. "Hunker down, man, you're gonna be fine," replies Tall, with the familiar overconfidence of a fictional dope. "I saw this thing on a survival show once." Tall bends over and starts sucking on the snake wound. Cut to: A camera angle that might make it appear to a passerby that Tall is in fact performing a sex act on Short, an impression underscored by all the loud slurping noises and the groaning. When suddenly . . . a babe jogs by! Midriff exposed! As you know, stupid guys are always lusting after babes, but fail to impress them because they are forever committing precisely this sort of gaffe. Short sees the babe--who has a look of surprised revulsion on her face--panics, and hurls Tall away from him to the ground, affects a "cool" posture, and says, "Hey," to the babe as she jogs away. "Want better advice?" a confident voice-over asks. "Get the Reebok Mistral with DMX, at Finish Line. How will you survive without them?" The other two ads involve similar misadventures of Tall and Short, one climaxing in Short using poison oak leaves as toilet paper, the other in the pair eating worms in the mistaken belief that they are on a deserted island. Both have the same tagline about getting better advice and buying the Reebok Mistral at Finish Line.
What it's trying to say: You, unlike Short and Tall, are not stupid, and instead of engaging in foolish behavior, you are wise enough to know that you are better off simply buying some Reeboks at Finish Line.
Why it fails completely: For starters, I'm willing to bet that most people who have seen this ad didn't even realize that it's touting an online retailer. It seems to be entirely an ad for the Reebok Mistral ("with DMX," whatever that means), and the advice to get them "at Finish Line" (for some reason the phrase "dot-com," which might clue you in to the fact that there's a Web site involved, is not spoken) drops right off the map. That, to me, seems like a pretty critical failure. Even if you set that aside, there is the matter of the ads' guiding stupidity--which, even as stupidity, is flawed. Tall and Short are throwbacks to the heyday of the New Stupidity, when for whatever reason America was applauding the loveable morons in Beavis & Butt-head, Dumb & Dumber, and Wayne's World. But Tall and Short aren't very funny and don't really seem lovable, and besides, this shtick has long since been left behind by a New New Stupidity, which is more crass and outrageous, supposedly more daring, and less endearing--South Park, Tom Green, Me, Myself & Irene. So Tall and Short seem dated. And finally, it's worth mentioning that there's no logical link between the action in the ads and the tagline about "better advice" and a particular style of shoe. Does the shoe give better advice? Does the unmentioned Web site give advice? Is the advice simply to buy the shoe? It's hard to say.
And so: These ads, I'm afraid, get a full-on F. They're stupid in all the wrong ways.












Nine Is So Weird, You Should Probably Go See It
How Will Michael Jackson's Death Change Music?
What Jenny Sanford Wrote in Obama's Facebook News Feed
The 12 Best Cheeses To Serve at Christmas
Oops—I Forgot I Was Piloting This Plane
Can You Believe What Joe Biden Said This Week?
Reader Response from The Fray:
These new Reebok ads continue the trend that we have seen in ads since the early 1990s: men are dumb, women are smart. Ask yourself how many times you have seen an ad (or a TV show, or a movie) where a woman does something dumb or erroneous, and a man gets the last laugh. What about one where a man and woman compete, and the man wins (without any last-minute zingers that show the woman is still better or smarter)? These types of themes in the media may do wonders for the development of little girls, but what about boys? We would never stand for ads where a black person is always the loser--why do we accept it when it's a man?
--Steve T
(To reply, click here.)
Maybe they don't have Finish Line where you are, but I am pretty certain that the ad was promoting the real stores in real malls, and also plugging its website. Would you make the same claim about a Ford commercial that happened to plug its website?
--Jim
(To reply, click here.)
Thanks, Jim, for the post and for the two emails you sent drawing this to my attention, and even telling me how many Finish Line stores there are and in how many states. I'd be happy to abandon my whole argument if I felt that this bit of sloppiness on my part undermined it. But to the extent that I was making a point about the shoe-seller, it's that the ad does a very bad job promoting Finish Line. That still seems to be the case. So I'll take the hit for not knowing about the land-based stores, but the ad still gets identical F.
--Rob Walker
(To reply, click here.)
These Stupid fellows go back long before Beavis and Butthead, at least through Bert and Ernie and Mutt and Jeff and probably beyond. The difference being that one of the pair was obviously a bit brighter then the other. Somewhere along the line that fine point was lost and we are now exposed to "Stupider and Stupidest". These ads are off track and the advertisers, unaware.
--Karl Erickson
(To reply, click here.)
(7/5)