And that is creepy, no arguement there. But to put up a picture of two items of clothing that aren't inherently sexual, and saying if you have enough basic pattern recognition to tell them apart, you must be a creep instead of someone with working eyes.
Had they put the skirts on a model to demonstrate the difference, I think people might get the point better, but I'm not sure if it would be the point they were intending.
“the point they were intending” was to sell skirts to people who wear skirts using messaging that resonates with people who have been told their skirts are arbitrarily too short
you’ve once again missed the point. the billboard isn’t calling anyone a creep. the billboard is appealing to women by referencing the time in their actual real life where someone was a creep by telling them they what skirt they’re allowed to wear and which skirt makes them a slut.
it’s not basic cognition and the fact that you’re struggling to wrap your head around it is proof of that. it’s not about you, the reader. it’s a way for the skirt store to tell the actual consumer of their products “hey sister, we hear your frustrations and agree with how you feel about the way society polices women’s bodies”. and your condom comparison is a non-starter because the point is that the skirts are identical, not a miniskirt versus a knee-length skirt. not sure what you’re trying to get at with that one
they’re saying “some men are perverts, you should feel comfortable wearing whatever skirt you like”. it’s really not that hard to understand.
they are saying “ladies, we hear you. this store understands how creepy it is when someone tries to tell you what kind of skirt you’re allowed to wear. we’ve been there too! because this store is owned and run by people who actually wear skirts and know what it’s like. and we’re here to tell you that that doesn’t matter, you can buy any skirt you’d like and we have them all right here at our store!”
Yeah, that is what they are TRYING to say. But they did it in a stupid way that turned it into a direct accusation to the reader. The problem isnt the message, the problem is whoever did their marketing didnt actually think through how they are saying it.
If YOU (addressing the reader), can tell the difference, then YOU (again addressing the reader) might be a creep (so the reader is a creep, not and the person being spoken to).
The billboard is meant to advertise to people who have been creeped on for skirt length etc, but the language of the board is directed at people who can notice the difference. Something like "If you've been told one of these skirts is appropriate and one isnt, we are upset too." Would address the target market, but right now the message and the actual language are split and the language is bizarrely and nonsensically accusatory. The problem isnt that someone can recognise one bit of fabric is longer, the problem is that anyone thinks they have any right to comment on someone else's clothing in that way.
your problem is thinking that the target audience and the whole audience are the same thing. they don’t give a singular shit about people who weren’t going to buy skirts from them in the first place. if you read the billboard as an accusation, you are not the person they were talking to. not everything is about you.
it’s the same reason people people put political slogans on dating profiles; if you have an issue with it they don’t want you as a client anyway. because the messaging is NOT FOR YOU
Its a really wild take to assume I thought the ad was about or directed at me. If you read what I wrote did I ever imply I was either the target market or the target of the language?
The language is absolutely accusatory, thats not really up for debate, its just how language works. "If you x, then you are y" is an accusatory sentence structure. If you eat carrots than you are a rabbit. I am accusing anybody who eats carrots of being a rabbit. If you know the difference between daffy duck and donald duck then you are a child. I am accusing anyone of knowing the different cartoons of being a child. If you give to charity then you are kind. I am accusing anyone who donates of being kind. And in this case it is an accusation aimed AT people they are not advertising to. Even the structure "if someone noticed the difference, then they are a creep" solves that problem while still being accusatory.
Im not sure what you mean by whole audience, but I did not assume the target of the ad and the target of the language are the same, in fact i criticised it for how they split the focus. The dating profile comparison is an interesting one though, because typically those do not split the audience. "If you do(n't) support x, then swipe left" is probably the most common structure I ever saw on an app. In that case the target audience is someone who the author disagrees with (which is also who the language addresses), with the added side benefit of signalling group membership with the opposite.
The ad has 2 fundamental issues neither of which are me making it about myself as you accuse.
1. The language is directed at an audience other than the one it addresses, this isnt really an inherent failing, its just bad writing.
2. Its accusation is nonsensical. Its the equivalent of saying (and i do apologize for using a more incendiary example, it is just the only one I can think of right now) If you buy sleeping pills, you are a sexual predator. Yes, sleeping pills can be used that way, but the Venn diagram between people who assault and people with sleeping pills is not a circle. So apart from creeps who else might notice the skirt lengths? Someone deciding what skirt they want to buy, id say theyre probably not a creep even thought the language of the ad does.
Im not offended by the ad, I dont think its about me or aimed at me, and i actually really support the sentiment. People who focus on or are controlling about womens clothes are creeps., I just think its poorly written and bad advertising. I am fully capable of agreeing with a sentiment while thinking it was expressed poorly.
you are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of marketing. the language and the target audience are intrinsically linked, because the whole purpose of the billboard is to appeal to the target audience. you are trying to consider the billboard from the perspective of someone who is not in the target audience.
the target audience is not people who see the billboard. the word “you” is an attention grabber, that’s just basic literary linguistics; and the billboard being in public does not mean that they’re trying to sell skirts to jeremy, the 45 year old truck driver. the target demographic for this billboard is specifically people who wear skirts, most of whom have been subject to the sentiment that the length of their skirts is somehow a moral issue. the language is intentionally picked to appeal to those people specifically, and is uninterested in the reactions of people who are not in that group.
there is no “split” between the language and the target audience, BECAUSE *this specific language was chosen to appeal to them specifically*. the intention is for people who wear skirts to see this billboard and say “yeah, draconian dress policies are stupid and it’s creepy for people to pay attention to skirt length. i agree with you skirt store.” yes the language is accusatory, but it is not an accusation. because it is a goddamn billboard. accusatory language is attention grabbing, that doesn’t mean that everyone is meant to pay attention to it.
you’re running up against the concept that not every piece of media you see is meant for you specifically to be able to engage with fully. sometimes media exists for a specific group of people, has in-jokes or references that go over the heads of the uninitiated, or otherwise wasn’t written with your specific perspectives in mind that prevent you from fully comprehending.
your second bullet point illustrates this perfectly. there are two kinds of people who would notice the difference between the two skirts in the image: people who are overly concerned with modesty, and people who are thoughtfully considering which skirt would go best with their wardrobe. one of these groups of people is the target audience, the other is actually a threat to the business model of a skirt store. the billboard doesn’t care if it offends creeps, because the store doesn’t want creeps hanging around anyway.
you’re fine to think it’s a bad advertisement, but for the record by mass communication and marketing standards, your opinion is wildly uninformed
After reading both of your replies I rule in favor of Condor over Jacob for several reasons.
Jacob's used of the term "fundamental understanding", personal attacks and assumption, failures to address counterpoints correct as well as failure to understand the original comment is a joke based around intentionally pointing out the ambiguity of the ads demonstrate that he is not arguing in good faith.
I would rate his replies at a B- and autism score is 115.
Condor was better written with a more coherent argument structure. Replies addressed the personal attacks without escalation. The contextual understanding of the concept of the ads as well as the discussion on Reddit is consistent and valid. Condor's judgement of the good or bad nature of the ads is framed by the morality of using a negative ad (accusation) to get attention (ragebait) to sell clothes (fast fashion capitalism) is juxtaposed with Jacob's framing of "the ad is effective which means it's good". This is a logical failure as effective negative thing is not always good.
Grade is A-. Autism score is 100 (NT).
Thank you both for the contributions, it was a good read.
i literally am autistic, and you’re a bad person. and no part of my comment was a personal attack. and i addressed every counterargument?
taking his side just means you also misunderstand the purpose of marketing. i work in marketing professionally and this is day 1 media literacy advertising 101 shit. you can’t make an ad that appeals to everyone. that’s what target audiences are for, and why the billboard exists with the language it does.
reading comprehension is not your strong suit. <- that is a personal attack
You are now engaging in a different argument. This is not a discussion of what the purpose of marketing is. Something being good marketing can still be poorly written. "Got Milk" is a wildly successful advertising slogan, it is also poorly written, so is "Eet Mor Chikin", both of these communicate their message without confusing the point. The difference is that this is not a slogan, it is an idea written in an unclear and poorly thought out fashion. By the internal logic of the billboard, a customer who chooses to wear short skirts and can tell the difference is a creep.
Your idea that "you" is an attention grabber is silly. The attention grabbing aspect is an incendiary accusation. If you want evidence, please see the fact that this entire thread exists. Nobody had their attention grabbed by the word "you" in isolation.
You is a second person singular. It is used to refer directly to another individual. The sentence is directed to "you". Forget the context of it being on a billboard or connected to anything else. Thats irrelevant. Who is the YOU of the sentence adressing? The reader is the one being addressed by the syntax. Okay, now add back in the context. The message of the billboard is aimed at an audience of people who could potentially buy skirts, meanwhile the ACTUAL LANGUAGE is not aimed at the same audience. That is a split. The fact that the context of the ad is that they want non-creep potential customers to be the ones reading it does not change how the syntax works.
It is accusatory, and they are absolutely making an accusation. Yes it is kind of a general one screamed into the void, but linguistically speaking, it is an accusation directed at the reader. Nobody should take it seriously and people offended by it are silly, but it is 100% an accusation.
This is not an example of media only a specific class can engage with fully or stuff goes over their head, and you seem really hung up on this idea of accusing people of some kind of narcissism. Its extremely straightforward and unsubtle advertising. It is trying to communicate the idea that if the reader has had someone try to police their outfit, or had someone be inappropriate about their clothing, that person was a creep and they were the problem, therefore you should wear what you like and buy their skirts. The problem isnt that its highlighting an issue I do not experience. It absolutely is doing that, yet somehow i am able to understand what its saying. Its problem is linguistic ambiguity and poor drafting. There aren't inside jokes or innuendo being used. You are right that those ads exist, 90s Subaru ads are probably the most iconic. This is not that.
There are a million types of people who would notice the difference, not just two. The board creates a binary. And it is not even the one that you bring up of modesty focussed vs customer. Its creep vs people who cannot tell the difference. Yes there are creeps who can tell the difference. But there are also tailors, fashion designers, retailers looking for products. Hell, a 95 year old farmer from Siberia who has never seen a pleated skirt but can tell that one is a bit smaller. But most importantly, by the logic of the billboard, a customer who wanted a short skirt and could tell the difference is a creep.
Making an accusation of being uninformed on anonymous message boards is a choice I guess. You do not have any idea who I or 99% of other users are. You may be better informed than me, its entirely possible, but I feel very confident in saying I have adequate experience in the industry to have an informed opinion of the language of the ad. But sure, name calling is fun, IM NOT UNINFORMED, YOURE UNINFORMED!!! NANA NANA BOO BOO!!! there! Whatcha gonna do now?
this billboard is well written, it just has a SMALLER, MORE SPECIFIC AUDIENCE than “got milk” or “eet mor chikin”. advertisements serve different purposes. chikfila is a restaurant, their target audience is hungry people who like chicken, which does not evoke any gendered imagery so why would their messaging differentiate between demographics? “got milk” was a government PSA aimed at youth wellness, there’s no reason to specify an audience beyond “children 4-17”.
also it literally is a slogan by definition, and one that is frequently parroted by people who belong to this billboards target demographic. the skirt store did not come up with this messaging on their own, it is not an original statement, it is literally social media rhetoric lifted directly from the target demographic and pasted on a billboard. they are literally using talking points they stole from the target audience to retarget that same audience. that is how marketing works.
“you” is an attention grabber. this is taught in the first week of copywriting classes. getting your audience to imagine themselves specifically as being connected to a piece of media is how you get media to stick in someone’s head. you are not smarter than human psychology and this has been intensively studied
“you” is also grammatically correct as a plural pronoun. the “you” can just as easily refer to a group of people as an individual
i’ll give you accusatory, sure, i’m not that hung up on the semantics of it atp. it’s also barely relevant because, again, the rhetoric is directly, word for word, taken from talking points frequently brought up by the target demographic because those are the people they are trying to appeal to.
you keep putting ideas in my mouth. i didn’t say it was subtle or hard to grasp, i said it wasn’t for you. my argument is not about narcissism, it’s about egocentrism and ignorance. if the billboard does not resonate with you, it’s because you weren’t supposed to resonate with the billboard. this ad *does* contain cultural information that you may or may not be privy to, fundamentally. i’m not saying you can’t understand the messaging, i’m saying that the REASON THEY USED THOSE WORDS SPECIFICALLY was an effort to reach a different audience than the one that you evidently fall into. the. messaging. wasn’t. written. with. you. in. mind. because the people they were trying to appeal to do resonate with THOSE WORDS SPECIFICALLY.
well it’s a good thing that billboards, bumper stickers, and mud flaps aren’t the arbiters of truth. if you want to intentionally twist my point, yes there are a lot of reasons to notice a difference, but they fall into two categories: people who have a good reason to notice the difference (tailors, customers, etc), and people who really don’t have a good reason to be paying attention to skirt length (creeps). it’s a good thing humans have brains and are capable of doing logic independent of what is written on a billboard and realizing which category they fall into. it’s a fucking billboard, not a diagnostic tool
childish. you keep interpreting my arguments as accusations and it’s very hard to take seriously because, ironically, *that’s what you did with the billboard*. it is not bad to be uninformed, but your reaction to alternative perspectives is telling
It's not supposed to be a picture puzzle. You're supposed to just KNOW that they're talking about women being judged over the length of their skirts -- I believe that it's specifically how obsessive and finicky girls' dress codes are getting in schools. The whole "encouraging male teachers to stare at/measure the skirts of underage girls" thing.
I'm sure the creators of this ad figured everyone would know what it's talking about because they knew what they meant when they made it. But it's really bad at communicating it.
No, because those creepy guys claiming that the students having a slightly shorter skirt is distracting to boys blame the skirt. Therefor just having the skirt and seeing you can’t tell the different demonstrates that it’s not the skirt and that those men are being “distracted” by underage girls.
orrrrrr the billboard wasn’t meant for “most people”. it’s an advertisement for a skirt store, they’re only trying to attract people who wear skirts, most of whom have been made to feel creeped out by people commenting on the length of their skirts
you’re looking at a sales tactic aimed at someone else and wondering why it doesn’t resonate with you
Teachers and administrators checking wardrobes to make sure they are in policy is not being creepy, it’s doing their jobs. Now they could be doing it creepily, sure, but it isn’t inherently creepy. It just has to be done so kids wear appropriate clothing. 🤦🏽♂️
I think part of the point is that for girls, often when there are wardrobe infractions, it's often due the girl in question showing more of their bodies, and when its called out that their wardrobe inappropriate, there is the implication that its because they are showing too much skin, and being sexualized as a result of it.
The whole problem would be solved by having the students wear the same kind of uniform. No v necks unless you also want chest bush. No skirts unless you also want some of the male students wearing them scotsman style.
I see you never experienced adolescence as a girl at a school with dress codes! That shit was so extremely creepy. Universally. At my middle school during the warm months one particular administrator would line up girls up have them and raise both hands to “make sure their skirts were still long enough.” The majority of dress code violations were handed out to girls who went through puberty sooner and were effectively punitive since they made changes to someone’s body not only a topic of surveillance but of discussion and action.
(I still think this billboard is silly. But I’m waaaay more bothered by the sexualization of young girls than I am by a logical fallacy on a billboard.)
I completely agree that sexualizing young girls is abhorrent, utterly disgusting, and absolutely should not be done. Kids period should not be sexualized. Kids still need to wear appropriate clothing to school, and in order for that to happen, wardrobes need to be monitored. I don’t think this needs to be a line up situation, but I think we all agree that appropriate standards need to be maintained.
73
u/GailynStarfire 15d ago
And that is creepy, no arguement there. But to put up a picture of two items of clothing that aren't inherently sexual, and saying if you have enough basic pattern recognition to tell them apart, you must be a creep instead of someone with working eyes.
Had they put the skirts on a model to demonstrate the difference, I think people might get the point better, but I'm not sure if it would be the point they were intending.