The Most Unethical 2017 Super Bowl Ad Is Yet To Be Revealed, But The Prize For The Most Shameless Is A Lock

Of course, all Super Bowl TV ads by definition are horribly unethical, exploiting for commerce a professional blood sport that renders healthy young men brain-damaged for a drooling public’s coarse amusement. To Hell with all the ads I say. Still, some are worse than others.

History suggests that the obnoxious Audi commercial above won’t be the worst, but it nicks a wider range of ethical breaches than the typical Super Bowl ad. For that it deserves, at very least, a hardy Ethics Alarm Bronx cheer, or “raspberry”…

to wit…

The major ethics breach in the ad is its advancement of the Big Lie That Will Not Die, the contention that in 2017  American women are systematically discriminated against in wages and not paid what men are for the same work based on gender. Studies have debunked this “Equal Rights Amendment” era trope; the figures defy it; common sense does too. Never mind: for decades we have been told by Democratic politicians, women’s rights activists and the news media that “women earn only 77 cents for every dollar men earn for the same work.” It is one of the most successful examples of a falsehood taking root in the culture as “truth” through repetition alone.

Even the high profile protests involving the myth are self-refuting, like women’s professional soccer players complaining that they aren’t paid the same as the male stars.

Audi’s suck-up to the Hillary Clinton base (the ad was commissioned and scripted when all assumed she would be elected  President) begins with a nauseating assumption of a societal injustice that doesn’t exist except for random pockets of troglodysm scattered across the landscape, (including, unfortunately, the White House). Few think women are not as “valued” as men, but Audi’s commercial pretends this is the norm, and in so doing, spreads the lie that it is. Yup, Hillary lost because she has a vagina and women aren’t valued, not because she’s inept, dishonest, corrupt, ran a terrible campaign and has  “public and private positions.”

Audi thus panders beyond belief, basing its entire, multi-million dollar ad (the thing cost 5 million bucks per 30 seconds, plus production costs) on the cognitive dissonance scale,

 

cognitive-dissonance… presuming that so positively do viewers regard “equal pay” (Audi assumes it’s a +10) that the mere statement that Audi “is committed” to it will yank the automobile (at +3, let’s say; the brand is way below zero for me because my horrible uncle and his sons were obsessed with Audis and…but that’s another story), up the scale by association, regardless of whether the car itself is any good.

Yes, I know that the scale is the life’s blood of advertising and has been for centuries, which is why babies, dogs and celebrities have always been used to sell products having nothing to do with babies, dogs and celebrities.  Still, using a fake political rallying cry as the cognitive dissonance magnet  is especially cynical.

That’s not all. As Jack Baruth expertly explains as he dissects the spot here, the ad is classist, misandrist and more, stereotyping males as fat villains, females as a superior species, and wealth as the ultimate virtue:

“At the end, what does this ad do? It just reinforces our natural biases. Poor is bad, rich is good, and most importantly, rich people deserve their fortune because they are inherently better than the rest of us. You might not like that message, but it’s been selling cars for a very long time. If Audi wanted to try some authentic activism, they might consider showing us an African-American man or woman who overcame a tough upbringing to become an actual customer, or perhaps a differently-abled person who’s achieved enough to buy himself an S8 as a reward for his hard work. But that’s not terribly aspirational, is it? Who wants to be those people? And, by the same token, who wouldn’t want to be that handsome father lifting his beautiful daughter out of someone else’s winning race car?”

Yeccch.

 

12 Comments

Filed under Business & Commercial, Childhood and children, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Gender and Sex, Government & Politics, Marketing and Advertising, Rights, Sports, U.S. Society, Workplace

12 responses to “The Most Unethical 2017 Super Bowl Ad Is Yet To Be Revealed, But The Prize For The Most Shameless Is A Lock

  1. So the ad is rolling out a scheme where Audi sells cars to women at 23% off the regular price?

  2. James Flood

    Jack: you’ll love this clueless tweet from Audi regarding the commercial. https://twitter.com/salonium_34/status/827237881601208321

  3. E2 (nee Elizabeth I)

    This would prompt one to buy an Audi? It’s not advertising, just poorly conceived Hillary-ite agit/prop.

  4. Carcarwhite

    So much to say but yueeeek sums it up perfectly.

  5. joed68

    Everyone knows that superior people own BMWs.

    • joed68

      My 540i’s exhaust makes this sound: “Out of my way, poor people; I’ve got important things to do”.

      Well, maybe not this minute. The engine is dead, and I’m swapping in a fresh(er) one in a rental storage space. In about three months, it will make this sound. For now, I ride transit buses with other poor people

    • Good to know. There are three of them parked in front of my house.

  6. dragin_dragon

    And here I thought my burnt-orange Isuzu i280 was pretty classy. Guess not.

  7. Like a few others I did not watch the Super Bowl nor did I watch parts just to catch the newest commercials everyone would be talking about come Monday morning. This blog is exactly why I choose to walk to the beat of my own drum for the most part and not give a thought to the opinions of others. Watching the commercial this blog is centered on did not ignite the same powerful emotions for me that it did the author. Without researching who is on the board of Audi or who Audi supported in the last presidential campaign I saw this commercial in a different light. I saw a large auto company wanting to send a message about something they think is important. I would never want a parent to tell their child they are less than their brother or sister or not worth something. I do think when men and women who fill the same job and it is completed as meets or exceeds expectations should be paid the same. It’s not about who completes the work, it’s about the quality of the work completed.
    I’m not starting a political fight with anyone I just don’t see the sense in taking everything like a personal stab; you can’t force an opinion to change. With all this being said I wonder if the auto makers selecting to make such influential commercials think about ethics or rather reciprocity fueled this thought? I would think those successful men in today’s organizations would want their daughters treated with the same respect they have if they were in their shoes. I relate reciprocity alongside the golden rule and I would hope I’m not the only one who things about a commercial like this and hopes it was fueled by something positive rather than negative.
    Johannesen, R. L., Valde, K. S., & Whedbee, K. E. (2008). Ethics in human communication. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

    • It’s cynical virtue signalling, and also a lie, as Audi proved in subsequent Twitter discussions, saying that the company paid the same for similar jobs, success, skill, credentials, experience, seniority—you know, all those factors that go into deciding salaries besides “gender.’

      In other words, the ad was horseshit, and pandering. As I said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s