Deconstruction Zone

September 26, 2006

Tiny TinaIt’s hardly necessary to deconstruct an ad like this. But it’s a start on what I hope might be a regular feature on Post Haste.

Those of us in advertising do enjoy criticizing one another’s work. It’s done, of course, with full appreciation for all the jumping through flaming hoops on the part of the executing agency (“Wow – I can’t believe the client approved that!”).

This is different from people who like to criticize ads but aren’t in advertising.

You know, those are the ones we always get resumes from. No experience in the business, but they’re convinced that a lifetime spent watching advertising on TV is sufficient qualification.

Which is why we now have YouTube.

At any rate, this Tiny Tina ad reminded me of the typo my co-worker Tammy found about a month ago in our paper. It was announcing the meeting of a church congregation in the local Budweiser “Disturbing Warehouse.”

They sure got that right.

I imagine the crowd – if there was one – that gathered to see Tiny Tina was a bit disturbing, too. That’s only one of the many aspects that make this ad so very wrong on so many levels.

Let me say I have nothing against dwarves, or little people, as I’ve discovered is alternate approved terminology.

But the way the ad presents Tina – 3’9”, “short and sexy” – besides being artlessly redundant – reminds me of a freak show.

I thought society had sort of tacitly agreed that freak shows are no longer cool, that gawking at other people isn’t nice.

So now we’ve got a pornographic freak show.

Little people deserve equal opportunity, even when it comes to being sex objects. But it’s not like this is happening in a vacuum. There’s an entire history of how little people have been treated. And if you ask me, they’ve had way too much opportunity when it comes to being exploited.

What if Tiny Tina could find a real job that pays well? Like in advertising or something? How many little people have you EVER worked with at an agency?

Certainly it’s none of my business what people do for entertainment. Or where they worship.

But one generally hopes people – of all sizes – can find mutually respectful, intimate relationships.

By Clara

Filed Under Criticism

Comments

One Response to “Deconstruction Zone”

  1. don on September 26th, 2006 10:12 am

    I agree wholeheartedly. This is a strange concept. What is even more troubling, is the fact that the proprietor of the establishment is using this tactic to bring in business.

    Maybe I just don’t get it, but I would tend to believe that this type of act would detract from any sort of classy establishment image this might be trying to attain. (Or maybe I am naive in that they would try to establish a “classy” establishment.)

    For a short time, it seemed that the “freak show” form of entertainment was back in fashion. I remember seeing the Jim Rose Circus (http://www.answers.com/topic/jim-rose-circus) a couple of times in the early 1990’s. Both times, they were the opening act at a concert I was attending. Seeing the bizarre acts performed on stage was both appalling, and engrossing. I didn’t want to watch, but I couldn’t take my eyes away from it. I think the Jim Rose Circus has lost some of it’s shock value attraction. I haven’t heard much about it in the past 10 years. I think the popularity of “shock value” entertainment and marketing can only last a short time before people lose interest.

Leave a Reply