Quote:
Originally Posted by XXtwindad
This came across one of my feeds recently ...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbc...mp/ncna1096106
Evidently, the new Peleton ad has been accused of being sexist, heteronormative, and classist. As a personal trainer, the idea of an already thin woman striving to become even thinner is really problematic. And it certainly would seem to enforce gender archetypes. Not sold on the "classist" critique.
If Peleton has determined that the a majority of their audience identifies as affluent suburban women, how do you target them effectively?
Interesting to note that Peleton offered no apology. |
There are two points raised by your post: the first is whether it is offensive, and the second is concerned with optimal targeting strategy.
For the former, it is not any more offensive than the ad copies they put out previously. The apparent assumption of many is that the sole reason someone lithe and limber hops on the stationary trainer is to get more lithe and limber, but as many of us here know, after a certain point, it's just all maintenance. As for heteronormative, this is its largest target audience; aka, playing it safe and obtaining the most audience reach. I'm also not sure how classicism comes in, as that usually requires interaction between people of different social classes. This is an ad centered on two (seemingly well-to-do) people, and there is no more classicism than what is generally exhibited by most ads targeting the upper middle class.
Your latter point is a bit different, as it is concerned with consumer psychology. Given your clientele and success working with said clientele, you probably know better than anybody else here how this demographic should be targeted when it comes to fitness and exercise. Also, how dare you leave out the affluent urban dwellers in their $1M downtown flats?
Jest aside, the targeted demographic is, by and large, one that is upwardly mobile and buys into the ideas of meritocracy and constant improvements in many aspects of life, never mind that the former isn't always operative, and the latter isn't possible after certain gains have been made. But ad copies aren't there to appeal to logic and reason, they are there to stoke the reptilian brain and stroke the ego of the target audience. Here (by here, i'm referring to all Peloton ads and the like), the message seeks to confirm the steps and dedication the target audience has taken to achieve its present standing (via the general poshness of the setting of the various ads, but without anything that immediately screams conspicuous consumption) and to remind the target audience of the potential self-actualization one may attain with the purchase (maintenance of that lithe and limber physique if one is already there, or as a goal that is worth the sweat and dedication for those who are not). It is essentially intimating: buy this, and you, too, can have this fabulous, Instagram-worthy lifestyle that you deserve. To some of us, it's nothing more than a stupid Jedi mind trick, but prevalence of such ads suggests that it does work.
A while back, I wrote, to the consternation of many, that this is all just a modern take of that cliché (originally coined by a vain Nazi sympathizer) that [one] can never be too rich or too thin. While the execution of this particular ad spot may have been off, that its general message doesn't stray too far from the normal script for items intended for the consumption of the upper middle class should say all there is to say about effective targeting.
I should also note that Peloton's ads are quite different from that from Zwift. As I have access to Eurosport, I see quite a few ads for Zwift. Zwift's ads are much more focused on the actual product (rather than the ambience) and is best described as a bit quirky. It shows different cyclists pedaling in what is best described as a green-room style interior, with a narrator shouting at the cyclists to chase various in-game characters, including the avatar of G(eraint Thomas), who gives the audience a wink. Corny and quirky.