Recently, there’s been a surge of debate surrounding advertising. It all started with a claim that the American Eagle Jeans ad featuring Sydney Sweeney was, frankly, racist. Then, there was some uproar over the Cracker Barrel logo.
With trans celebrity Dylan Mulvaney’s debut in advertising, it feels like these ads are now part of this ongoing cultural battle.
A notable backlash can be traced back to an April 2017 Pepsi ad that featured Kendall Jenner, which triggered a quick and furious reaction from many on the left.
Sweeney’s jeans commercials have sparked discussion among industry experts, pointing to a potential shift in cultural dynamics.
It seems that the Black Lives Matter movement was largely overlooked in the conversation. Interestingly, not too long ago, ads were more straightforward and centered on shared interests, but now they’ve become intertwined with these larger societal issues.
By 2020, during the pandemic, advertising messages often revolved around the lockdown experience, reaching audiences repeatedly.
This leads to the question: how did television ads become such critical components of our political and cultural dialogue? Perhaps the answer lies in the fragmentation of TV viewership. Now, those ads might be the only common ground left among us.
The evolution of public attitudes toward LGBTQ+ issues, particularly since key legal decisions, has often been echoed in what we see on our screens. In the late ’70s, Billy Crystal portrayed a gay character in “Soap.” Fast forward to the late ’80s, and by then, complex gay relationships were being depicted in more serious ways.
Television has historically mirrored societal changes; it’s a reflection rather than a catalyst. So, it’s fascinating to see how art often reflects life, rather than the other way around.
The introduction of trans characters into mainstream narratives, like Laverne Cox on “Orange Is the New Black,” propelled those conversations into the public eye. Following her debut, a backlash arose, illustrating that these discussions are still contentious.
The dialogue around race and gender has evolved. In the past, these were more universal discussions—something everyone engaged with since we watched the same shows. Now, with so many options, fewer people share that experience.
If you want to catch today’s narrative about gender fluidity, you might want to look at the ads featuring Dylan Mulvaney, which are more prominent than actual storylines in many series.
Interestingly, survey results indicate that viewing habits often align with political sentiment: liberals favor streaming platforms like Netflix, while conservatives lean toward services like Paramount Plus. However, everyone sees those same ads.
For a while, advertisers have seemingly operated under the belief that they bear some responsibility to contribute to social justice. But perhaps they should prioritize their business objectives first. After all, engaging storytelling led to the widespread acceptance of shows like “The Cosby Show,” which redefined the typical family image in America.
Just as writers in the past sought to address societal issues through entertainment, today’s advertisers should focus on their bottom lines. In doing so, they might still help foster societal change.
The tension over advertising and culture isn’t going away anytime soon. It’s interesting to note how, unlike five years ago when conservatives often felt dismissed in these discussions, today, both sides are vying for a place in this narrative.
Now, it seems we’re in an era of advertising that reflects a more diverse set of views. In the past, shows like “M*A*S*H” brought together massive audiences, but that’s not really the case anymore. Nowadays, catching even 5% of viewership is considered significant.
Ultimately, advertisers need to regain focus—perhaps on selling their products rather than trying to redesign society. That might be the most effective approach moving forward.
