Coors Light ad has more nods to women than just the “being done wearing a bra” part

A friend of mine recently co-founded the Alewives Podcast to celebrate “beer, history, beer history, and the women who make them” and that’s got me thinking a lot about beer marketing and advertising.

The Coors Light “The Official Beer of Being Done Wearing a Bra” advertisement above stands out, as many have commented, because it’s a far cry from the usual “beaches and bikinis” portrayal of women we often see in mass-produced beer advertising.

But while everyone is focused on the end, where she takes her bra off as a relaxing (and non-sexual) gesture, I noticed two things earlier in the advertisement that are also strong signals to women:

  • :06 mark: As she takes off her shoes, we see a bandaid. If you’re not familiar with the “heel bandaid” they are worn because the backs of some shoes rub on your actual heel and it causes pain and blisters. It’s very common with high heels and thus something many women can relate to. Side note: If you can relate to this, heel grips are a beautiful thing.
  • :03 mark: I could be wrong about this one since we don’t see a dog later in the ad, but the painting of the dog on the wall looks like it came from a “Paint Your Pet party” to me. These parties are where people bring their own food and drinks and take a class where they learn to paint. They tend to be especially popular with women.

And there are a couple of subtleties when she opens the fridge (:10 mark) that are worth noting:

  • There is a bottle of white wine that she reaches past to get to the Coors Light beer, subtly offering a contrast to the traditional expectations that women reach for wine to relax.
  • The fridge has fruit juice, salads, some sort of takeout, and an apple in it. While I’d argue fruit juice isn’t healthy, the foods we associate with health around the Coors Light cans in the fridge gives the beer an association effect of healthiness.

While I recognize there have been some criticisms of the ad, I think it’s a well thought out, well-executed advertisement by Coors Light and Leo Burnett.

How politicians, celebrities, and brands get you to “like” them

A paper sign on a lamp post that says "Be the first of your friends to like this post" below it has the facebook thumb's up icon so people can tear one off.
“Like This Post” by Bernard Goldbach is licensed under CC BY 2.0

During a recent online discussion, a colleague posed a question about the Persuasion Principle of Liking (Robert Cialdini). Most of the examples in literature are at an individual scale, meant for 1:1 interaction. He was interested in how this does or could scale.

For my contribution to the discussion, I decided to focus on politicians, celebrities, and brands and how they utilize the Principle of Liking to encourage the general public or their target markets to “like” them at scale.

Similarities

The first example of this that came to mind is how people will say “They talk like me,” or “They tell it like it is,” (which, in my opinion, actually means “this person has the same opinions as me”) about why they like particular politicians. If you’re curious about this and don’t mind a very dense read, I recommend The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt, as he breaks down the moral structures and topics (which then you could deuce wording and phrases) that appeal to different subsets of the public.

Another way I think brands, celebrities, and politicians foster similarity this is through origin stories. A brand for a protein bar will tell you the story of how it all started with an avid fitness person in their kitchen who wanted a better option than the ones currently on the market. Or a politician or celebrity will tell the story of their humble beginnings. An underrated example of this, in my opinion, is Jennifer Lopez’s “Jenny from the Block” song, which highlights her “regular” upbringing.

Brands also highlight similarity by featuring people who look like you in ads. When I was looking for a new car a few years ago, I was shocked that I subconsciously added the Cadillac brand to my online search, as I’ve always associated Cadillac with “my grandmother drove one of those.” But when I thought about it, I’d seen several Cadillac ads recently where they showed women who looked like me owning and driving them. While I’m yet to find proof, I’m also convinced Cadillac may have had a marketing agreement with Carrie Underwood to create her song “Two Black Cadillacs” to market to younger women.

Compliments

Politicians and performers on stage tend to give these compliments outright. I’ve come to dread the part of concerts where they shout “We love you New Orleans!” because I’m sure they say that in every city. And I wonder if it’s written somewhere where they can see it so they don’t say the wrong name, but I digress….

Politicians tend to say things like “Detroit, you are amazing. You’ve had a tough few years, but you are coming back because you all are incredible.” Arguably, the more the politician or celebrity genuinely believes this, the more genuine it’ll come across.

Brands are usually more subtle. The one that immediately comes to mind is the Dove campaign for real beauty ads. They are celebrating women’s bodies and saying “You are beautiful no matter your size, shape, stretch marks, etc.” Although it’s worth noting that their parent company also owns Axe body spray, which as a brand has a vastly different commentary on women and beauty.

Cooperation

I joke that you could channel-surf on TV by which commercials are on (Subway ads = Simpsons, Family Guy, or American Dad mostly). I think that’s especially true on Sunday mornings during the intellectual news and financial market commentary. The ads during these times are highly environmental and cooperative-focused. They tend to have a theme around, “We’re working with you to protect and sustain our environment” and are run by oil companies and the like.

While I could also argue it’s reciprocity, Chick-Fil-a’s marketing strategy of sponsoring a tremendous amount of community events, in my opinion, is a great example of, “We’re a part of this community cooperating with you to make it a better place” cooperation.

Ethics consideration

With scale, you cross an ethical line if you lead the person to believe there is a direct or personal connection when there isn’t. I get emails that have my name in the subject area and are addressed to me, but I realize that it’s a form letter. But if they sent an automated email that made me think a particular person (such as a politician or celebrity) themselves wrote to me when they didn’t and/or made me think the message was sent to just me when it wasn’t, I think that’s unethical. And, it risks ruining the relationship of the person discovers it.

Interviewing? Be careful where you sit and the camera angle

Does it really matter, when you’re doing an interview either in person or on camera, where you sit? It turns out, it does, and rather drastically.

What’s-focal-is-presumed-causal phenomenon

In Robert Cialdini’s newest book Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade he discusses the what’s-focal-is-presumed-causal phenomenon. Essentially, if a camera or third person is viewing a conversation and they can only see one of the faces in the conversation, they view the person whose face they can see more critically and blame them more.

As Cialdini explains:

As we know from the experiments of [Shelley Taylor, a social psychologist at the University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA)], a camera angle arranged to record the face of one discussant over the shoulder of another biases that critical judgment toward the more visually salient of the two. We also know now— from the more recent experiments of social psychologist Daniel Lassiter— that such a camera angle aimed at a suspect during an interrogation leads observers of the recording to assign the suspect greater responsibility for a confession (and greater guilt). Moreover, as was the case when Taylor and her coworkers tried it, [social psychologist Daniel Lassiter] and his coworkers found this outcome to be stubbornly persistent. In their studies, it surfaced regardless of whether the observers were men or women, college students or jury-eligible adults in their forties and fifties, exposed to the recording once or twice, intellectually deep or shallow, and previously informed or not about the potentially biasing impact of the camera angle. Perhaps most disturbingly, the identical pattern appeared whether the watchers were ordinary citizens, law enforcement personnel, or criminal court judges.

Cialdini, Robert (2016-09-06). Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade (p. 63-64). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

How can you fix this?

Ask for the camera to be positioned so that it equally shows your face and the interviewer’s face. In person-to-person situations, make sure you’re positioned so that the third party viewers can see everyone’s face equally.

Cialidini notes:

Nothing could change the camera angle’s prejudicial impact— except changing the camera angle itself. The bias disappeared when the recording showed the interrogation and confession from the side, so that the suspect and questioner were equally focal.

Cialdini, Robert (2016-09-06). Pre-Suasion: A Revolutionary Way to Influence and Persuade (p.63- 64). Simon & Schuster. Kindle Edition.

Of course, if you wanted to heavily turn the tables in your advantage, you would ask to position so that the third party viewers could see only the interviewer’s face, but there are some ethical implications of doing so and, even if that weren’t the case, I doubt you’d be able to convince someone to do it, since you are the subject of the interview.

My suggestion would be to make equal face angles a stipulation of you agreeing to be interviewed. This might be a challenge, especially at the national media level because multiple camera angles keep the interview interesting to the viewers, but it’s still worth working with your PR team to balance the situation.

Go into situations looking for the focal point

Another way of addressing the situation is to predict the focal points ahead of time or notice them right away given the scenario to be able to fix them. This will take some consideration as you approach various situations, and it will be well worth your time to do so. In a non-planned situation, I recommend walking into a situation and immediately assessing the layout, where the cameras are and where everyone is sitting. If you see bad angles, try to fix it from the get-go, before people start sitting down. Once they’ve chosen a seat or a position, they are less likely to move from it.

However, if they have already chosen a position, you could still tactfully try to remedy the situation. For example, if a third party is watching your job interview, you could say something like “Why don’t you join us at the table?” and helpfully put a chair where they can see both faces equally. Or, for a public forum, you could say “How about we arrange these chairs so that it’s more of a conversation?” and set them up so the audience can see both you and your interviewer equally.

Beyond the media interview

As the examples above show, there are also other times when the what’s-focal-is-presumed-causal phenomenon could have an impact on the outcome of your interviews and conversations, including:

  • Public forum discussions
  • Interviews by the police
  • Conflicts being resolved with a mediator
  • Contentious meetings
  • Job interviews

As you move throughout your days, take notice of face and camera angles. This will get you into the habit of looking for this prior to a critical situation.