Old Spice: Not Meant for All Men (1983)
Old Spice: The Man Your Man Could Smell Like
Watch these two Old Spice commercials carefully. How does the 1983 commercial compare to the newer one? How are they similar and how are they different? How does each commercial represent masculinity? How do these commercials attempt to sell a product to a male audience? A female audience? Things to consider: race, class, male and female stereotypes, etc.
Of the two commercials, the more recent ad is the most interesting. Consider how the commercial uses humor to appeal to the audience by drawing their attention to male/female stereotypes. Does this approach "undo" these stereotypes by making them explicit? Or does the commercial perpetuate the very stereotypes it works to parody?
In the older of the two comercials, the product was directed at the men as where in the more recent, the product was directed almost at women.
ReplyDeleteI definitely felt that the first version in 1983 was a selling point to men. They were their target audience. In this commercial also the marketers view wasn't sexually explicit at all. It was very modest and should that men who bought old spice were considered masculine, real men. Where the second version was completely geared towards woman. They were trying to make woman realize that the men they are dating are a bunch of pansies that use feminine body wash. By these woman finding a real man who uses old spice, they would be much happier.
DeleteGood start Sam, but I'd like to see you develop your claim more. Why does the older one appeal to men and how? And how does the newer one appeal to women? What evidence do you have?
ReplyDeleteEverybody, be sure to read the information posted to the left. It will help you to develop your post. Also, be sure to address all the questions I have posted under each topic. Your responses should be between 100-250 words.
The first commercial is based on young men. It is trying to appeal to the younger generation. This is a type of man who enjoys playing sports or hanging out with the young ladies. It was down playing the older generation by making then seems less sexy and appealing. They were acting as if they should not use this product, even if they did it would not help.
ReplyDeleteThe second commercial showed a black male that was supposed to be every woman’s dream. He was selling sex it appears that when buying this product for your man that anything can happen dreams do come true. It is hard to believe that they are stating that with a bath and body wash that this could happen. I find that in the first one they are selling cologne and in the second they are selling body wash. How products change is amazing to me. If the cologne worked in the past why change things? I find it interesting that they did not use any black males in the first commercial, but used only one male who was black in the second. The commercial almost insults woman’s thinking that a product like a bath and body wash could make things more wonderful with your man.
The first commercial does appear to be geared toward younger men, especially when they showed the old man sitting on the bench and they said "not him." It was as if they were saying old spice can help you feel good, smell good, and attract the ladies, but only in the younger years. Not even old spice could help the old men. The second commercial was definitely trying to sell sex and was emphasizing the not old, but older generation, by including a man with money. He wasn't just a silly kid playing baseball, attracting the ladies, but he resembled a business man who has the financial means every lady is looking for. He goes on a cruise, on some exotic beach, opens a clam with two tickets, they turn to diamonds, etc, etc.
DeleteJuanita, I would have to agree with your interpretation of the second video. I thought the commercial was quite clear in the fact that it was trying to use sex appeal of black man to grab the attention of females. From this they developed the character to be the ideal man with a comical twist. On the first commercial though, I had a contrasting viewpoints of the concept behind the commercial. My understanding is that they were targeting a man’s man. He was the stereotypical American man that was athletic, attractive, and family oriented. I did see how they targeted a specific age of men, but I don’t believe it was discriminating against the older generation. It appeared to me that the other men in the commercial that weren’t deemed worthy of the deodorant were all doing something un-masculine. They all were examples of what society viewed as un-masculine or feminine. So I thought the commercial’s goal was to target men who would associate themselves as being a “man”, (stereotypically speaking).
DeleteIt's apparent that Old Spice has made major changes to the way they advertise their products. Each commercial does however represent masculinity. The 1983 commercial is targeted at men who like impressing women or are role model fathers. The commercial appeals to the idea of being a young successful man.
ReplyDeleteThe newer commercial has a more of a concentration of having a man appeal to a woman. Old Spice is portraying that when a male uses Old Spice he becomes more masculine because of his non lady-like scent. Old Spice makes it seem like men who use their manly products will be able to satisfy their significant female other.
I found the 1983 commercial's approach to be somewhat of a risky way of advertising. Old Spice is potentially deterring some customers from buying their product by giving straight-up examples of people that Old Spice believes shouldn't be using the product. The newer commercial doesn't have the same offensive material can appeal to nearly everyone.
I agree with you, Ross, that the marketing technique used in the 1983 Old Spice commercial is a bit controversial. Old Spice was potentially turning off a large market of people by saying certain people aren’t meant to wear old spice, or aren’t good enough to wear it. This further demonstrates how our society defines what a “real” man should be and views these people as superior, but then looks down upon those who don’t fit the image. This commercial could be found insulting by a great deal of people. The second commercial does a better job of appealing to a larger audience.
DeleteInteresting point Ross. Is it possible they used a negative stereotype to actually sell to those they were making fun of? If a person was odd with low self esteem, could this adverse marketing actually make them WANT the product? Make them see what they could be instead? Car companies do this all the time as an example.
DeleteI agree with your view on the newer commercial that with the use of old spice the male becomes more of a "provider" so to say for his lady friend. They use bribery to bring the focus to females.
DeleteHowever, I agree with what Matt brought up with the for the second commercial. I feel like they did this tactic on purpose to bring in more consumers. Also, I feel that they did this to both show what happens when you dont use Old Spice and how much better Old Spice can make you.
After watching both commercials I can see that the message the company is trying to get out is still the same, even decades later. They are trying to sell the idea of a true man and true masculinity. The basic idea that I got out of it is that a “real” man can wear Old Spice and old spice makes “real” men, thus representing masculinity. These commercials are different in their aims. The first one is aimed at men, and the second one is aimed more so toward women. The first commercial tries to sell their products to males by saying that it’s not meant for everyone. The basic idea is that “cool” guys wear Old Spice, therefore making people want to buy the product to be cool. The second commercial attempts to sell their product to a female audience by convincing them that their boyfriend could be like the attractive, sexy actor if he wore Old Spice.
ReplyDeleteI found it interesting how the first commercial was filled with all white males and the second commercial was focused on a black male. This demonstrates how much change has occurred in society throughout the years. The use of humor in the second commercial exemplifies the gender stereotypes of today. I don’t think this use necessarily “undoes” the stereotypes, but I do think it helps bring them to light.
I definitely agree with you that the first commercial is targeted towards men and the second one towards women. I hadn't thought about how they made it seem like Old Spice was only meant for certain men. I think that's interesting because it makes men want to identify with the cooler man in the commercial because that is who they want to be like. This then makes them want to go and buy Old Spice. I noticed too that there were all white men in the first and only a black male in the second. It definitely shows how societies view of a masculine "real" man has changed. I agree that the humor brings light to the stereotypes and that even though it doesn't "undo" them it still successfully sells the product.
DeleteI noticed that in the 1983 commercial, when they were showing the "real" men who wear old spice, they all had ladies on their arms. The 1983 commercial really aimed to get the men's attention by showing what "real" men are like while the newer one tried to target women by showing them what there men could be like. The newer commercial stereotypes women by showing that all women love boat rides, diamonds, the beach, and horseback rides. However, the 1983 commercial stereotypes men by showing that "real" men are athletes, businessmen, always have a woman, and teach their children to ride a bike.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Peyton, but not only do they show women in the arms of the old spice users. They take the time to show you what the guys look like you don't use old spice. The commercial says, "some men were meant for old spice, him, but not him". The people they chose for this are stereotypical less "cool" and "less manly". The guys that old spice is made for are of course better looking and have women around them. By old spice using this approach it can help them reach a broad audience. The men that fit the regular users profile will use the product, and the guys that think that they're less appealing to women will also use old spice, in order to get women. The men who are "less cool" will want to wear old spice in order to be cool and be with the good looking women.
DeleteClearly the "Not Meant For All Men" version depicts the average masculine figure as an outgoing, attractive, lady's man. They start the commercial off with the men playing baseball, which stereotypically implies a masculine trait portraying muscular figure, strength, and the ultimate jock, that all the woman stereotypically are looking for. The guy wearing the old spice has a girlfriend that runs out to the field as soon as it's over. The old spice advertisement in this clip imposes a more modest appeal and shows a more simplistic view of attraction between the opposite sex.
ReplyDeleteIn the second clip "The Man Your Man Could Smell Like" is all out sexual. It grabs the attention of a whole new audience. The male figure is half dressed standing in a towel, muscular, and tries to implore that by wearing old spice, your man could be as sexy and masculine as he is. He makes fun of guys who wear stereotypical feminine body wash and heads out on a cruise with tickets in a clam that turns to diamonds. It sounds like he is trying to steal woman away from their men, because he overly repeats "look at your man, now look at me." Then when he heads off on a horse that shows dominance. Males who have horses are thought of as strong and masculine.
With regards to the "not for all men" comercial, I did see that the men involved were generally good looking men that also had a girl on each arm. Where as in the "man your man could smell like" comercial has a faster paced tempo with many twists leading to the end where he is playing the roll of a typical romance novel where the "stud riding a stud" motife tops it all off. These two comercials were created for very different groups of people. the relative age is still the same but the culture difference between these two time periods is imence. Now setting the precieved target audience(man or women) the new information age almost calls for the fast paced, in-your-face attitude for the more recent comercial. They needed a style that would pop out, stick in your mind and prorot a product. Weather that causes controversy or not still has us talking about the product.
DeleteGreat job guys! Something to think about: what is the role of humor in one or both of these commercials?
ReplyDeleteAlso, to the rest of the class, remember, we have another topic to look at as well. I'd like to see some comments on that too.
I think these two commercial from different time reflect the different definitions of the masculine.
ReplyDeleteThe commercial in 1983 used three comparisons to tell what the old spice represents. First, the comparison between the man who is clapping with his teammates and the man who is running alone with a ridiculous expression on his face means that the old spice is for the man who is athletic, outgoing, and successful. Second, a man playing with his child and a men sitting alone with his dog indicate that the old spice represents the man who is caring for his family and has responsibilities. Third, the comparison between a man walking and talking with a lady on the street and a self-obsessed man shooting a photo alone means that the old spice represents the man who is attractive to ladies. All these terms represent the definitions for masculine in 1983.
Then, the second commercial used monologue to show their opinions about masculine are totally different; it is a single man regardless of the racial, who is very confident about his charm. He clearly knows very well about how to ingratiate himself with the ladies. Also, he is rich.
Comparing these to definitions, the people in 1983 would like to use masculine to describe a “good husband”, while nowadays, people are more willing to call the young, sexy, flattering, and wealthy man masculine.
I agree with your viewpoint on the first commercial. When I saw the commercial, the first thought that hit on my head was that the men who use the Old Spice are dipicted as a charming, role-model father, whereas the men who don't use Old Spice are not. This tells that they are trying to sell the Old Spice to men by making the men think that the Old Spice would make them better.
DeleteI thought the first video was directed towards the everyday man and seemed more relatable. There was a little bit of humor towards the men that weren’t made for Old Spice, however they seemed to be targeting a pretty average normal man. They showed the man made for Old Spice doing everyday activities with women at their sides. I think the producers wanted men to see this and think that could easily be them if they started using Old Spice. This commercial represents masculinity as a cool man who gets ladies but in a casual way.
ReplyDeleteThe second video was targeted more towards women since it contained an attractive shirtless male. This catches a woman’s attention more and the humor adds even more to that. I thought it was very interesting how in this commercial there isn’t a narrator and instead the man is talking directly to the audience. Even though it is clearly targeted towards women I think it could be targeted towards men too because a man could see the commercial and think that all women want their man to smell like that so they should then go buy the product. It definitely satirizes women and men stereotypes but they use this in a non offensive way since it’s humorous. This commercial represents masculinity in a very commercial way with the muscular man with a low voice and bold attitude and way of speaking.
These commercials are similar in that they both sell Old Spice in a way that shows men if they use their product they will have success with women. The first one is more of a realistic way of portraying masculinity and the average man whereas the second one is more of a fantasy for women and appeals to both women and men in that way. Humor is also used in different ways, however, they have the same ending effect. All the men in the first commercial were white and in the second one he was african american. This is interesting to me because they both don’t seem like they are targeting a particular audience of men.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree with Katie's point about the newer commercial also targeting men rather than just mainly women. I think that even though the male in the commercial is speaking as if he's talking to women, he's is sort of indirectly talking to men and hinting to them what women like in a man's scent. But it is a creative marketing plan because Old Spice is also capturing women's attention and the women can tell their man that they should use Old Spice products because it will make them more masculine.
DeleteI agree with Katie I feel that the first video was targeted for the more average man. By this commercial men that are meant for old spice will feel like they don't have to be some goddess to be able to use this product. They used the average Joes in the commercial so men could feel like they relate to them. It wasn't really targeted for the women. Where on the other hand the second commercial was targeted for what women's men should and could be if they used old spice and not some average brand that made them smell feminine. They are stating if they use this product they will be more of a man.
DeleteThe 1983 Old Spice commercial is based mainly upon trying to market their product as one for a true (read: stereotypical) man. The narrator points out that men who are generally well-dressed and groomed, while doing "manly" things- playing baseball, helping his son learn to ride a bike, and shaving. Old Spice wasn't for men who couldn't dress well, and men who weren't socially acceptable. The general idea seemed to be, "Only real men use Old Spice, so you should be just like them."
ReplyDeleteThe new Old Spice commercial uses humor much more than the previous one. The man in the entire commercial is a well-built, strong voiced man speaking to a woman. It's ironic he does this since the product is marketed exclusively for use by men. The idea of the commercial is that men should be seeing that the man in the commercial is what women are all looking for (if obviously not realistic), and if men want to be that man, they need to buy Old Spice as well.
The idea that Old Spice is for a “true man” is one that they stick to in both commercials in my opinion. I just don’t see why they would be limiting who should be buying their product. Since other people mentioned it, there aren’t any black males in the 1983 video, do you think they weren’t including the black male in that “true man” role back then? It seems as though they have switched up their marketing method and like you said any guy can be that rich desirable man all they need to do is use Old Spice.
DeleteBoth commercials obviously have a similar theme that in using their product, you'll smell like a masculine man. The 1983 commercial uses humor devices that are still prevalent and widely used today. Jester/buffoon characters are almost always necessary to give the viewer a frame of reference of just how much more desirable the main focus characters are. Lets also give some context and remember that back in '83, this would have aired between shows like Dallas and Dynasty. For those people tabbing around to Google those shows, they were evening dramas about sexy rich white people, probably very Desperate Housewives-esque. Given that context, I would say it fits an even larger stereotype of desirable traits in both men and women for the period and the culture.
ReplyDeleteThe new commercial, I would argue, is not humor based, but entertainment based. Clearly you are given the imagine of a man, and what a man should look like. Muscled and defined, half nude, a seductive grin, and a deep full voice. But no one has ever sent a link to their friend with this Old Spice commercial with the subject "Omgz Hilarious video". It is visually stunning and extremely entertaining which draws the audience in. Also, all of the components are stereotypical things the "Manly Man" does. Yachting is for rich and beautiful people, buying tickets to an event is high class, diamonds are aways associated with wealth and prosperity, and a man riding shirtless on a white horse on a beach is required by law to be on every romance novel cover ever I'm pretty sure. But the newer video appeals not only to both men and women, but also to people of other races, as well as younger generations as well.
After reviewing both of the commercials, one can pull out a few stereotypes used that are pretty obvious. Also, you can see major differences in how Old Spice has evolved in its own advertising. I feel like it they are almost completely different commercials, even though they’re selling basically the same product, just in different time periods.
ReplyDeleteIn the first commercial, Old Spice is targeting the most “basic” man that they can. By “basic’ I mean that they aimed for the males that fit the everyday working class male. They wanted to exclude the “nonnormal” men out there, like the man with the dog and matching bowties. At the end of the commercial, the rhetoric used by the “manly” voice makes you want to use Old Spice to make you a man.
In the newer commercial, Old Spice is targeting both male and females, mostly females though. In using an attractive colored man, the company wanted to catch the eyes of females watching. Also, it focuses on all the stereotypes a woman wants in a man such as; tall dark man, diamonds, tickets, and a shirtless man on a horse on a beach.
All in all, I would say that the first commercial focused on targeting the average male, and the second commercial focused on targeting females.
One interesting thing that was one of the first things I noticed here is that all the people shown in the 1983 original commercial are caucasian. By comparison, the more recent commercial is focused on just one person, a black male. As a result of the characters shown in both commercials, the newer one is more likely to appeal to a wider audience. Like some others have said, the 1983 commercial almost tries to restrict its target audience by saying the product is not meant for certain people. Both commercials make an attempt to sell the product through the tactic of implying that men not using it are not masculine. The first one does this by showing attractive looking younger men with attractive women and the basic selling point is that men who use old spice will get to be with women like the ones in the commercial. The more recent commercial also has an attractive younger man and the commercial also implies that a man who uses old spice body wash could smell like the man in the commercial. Beyond the surface, the attractive man is there to draw women to be interested in the commercial and then men who see that women are interested in the old spice man will buy the product to try to draw the same interest from women. From what I see, both of these commercials have the same basic selling point, which is that old spice products will make you masculine and attractive to women, but they go about making that point in very different ways.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think both ads of the Old Spice are pretty strait forward which tell their customer what to expect.
ReplyDeleteThe ads successfully made us to relate masculine to their product. So, every time we think of Old Spice, we know it is for masculine men. Sometimes it is just so hard to make choices when we are in the market facing the similar product. A predominant characteristic will make Old Spice Stick out. It simply tells me that if I want to look masculine then I should buy Old Spice. By the way, I think most people really care about others’ perception. If the Old Spice if famous enough on its masculine characteristic, then whoever wants to show his masculine has to buy Old Spice. Although the first ads is somewhat offensive to those man who are not so masculine. We can see the improvement that the second ads made, which becomes much less explicit and offensive. However the ads still conveys the information that the product is for masculine men. And I think the second ads is playing some psyc tricks. It really is targeting on men instead of women. Do women (not single) really care about what their men smell like? I don’t think so. But men (single) do, we all want to be attractive. The second ads simply states that the Old Spice will make you attractive.
Fisrt of all, I think the 1983 commercial is targetting on male audiences and the more recent one is targeeting on female. The first one is trying to sell the Old Spice by showing that the men who use Old Spice have beautiful women, are nice fathers to kids, and are the ones whom women like (masculine). And the ones who do not use Old Spice are depicted as opposite. Therefore, the first commercial tells us that if we want to be charming, masculine men, we should buy the Old Spice.
ReplyDeleteCompared to first commercial, the second one is more towrad to women, so they buy the Old Spice for their boyfriends or husbands, expecting them to be like the attractive black male in the commerical. In the second ad, the black male with Old Spice moved from a bathroom to cruise, holds two tickets in a clam that turned into diamonds. This makes Women think that males with Old Spcie has a lot of money, so they would be happy.