oaf@mit-vax.UUCP (Oded Feingold) (04/03/85)
There is another possible solution to the problem of an unrepentant company featuring women in swim suits in its ads, and it is what has happened here. Distribute Computer Dynamics' name wherever you can, with specific mention that they do what they do, they're not going to stop, they hope to carbonate your hormones and thereby sway your business judgment. Let them know that their behavior is known to tens of thousands of engineers on Usenet. Let them also know that commentaries on their behavior will make it onto CBBSs and bboards (and gender-oriented mailing lists) throughout the world. If they stand behind their ad campaign, they shouldn't mind that everyone knows exactly what they're doing. Oh, almost forgot - boycott them and let them know what you're doing (and why). It worked on Nestle, and that's a much bigger company. Don't get mad, get even. Kill 'em with the one thing they can't even pretend to object to - publicity. Oded -- Oded Feingold UUCP: mitvax!oaf MIT AI Lab Arpa: oaf%oz@mit-mc.ARPA 545 Tech Sq. AT&T: 617-253-8598 work Cambridge, Mass. 02139 617-371-1796 home (and answering machine)
chabot@miles.DEC (L S Chabot) (04/05/85)
Oded Feingold: > There is another possible solution to the problem of an unrepentant company > featuring women in swim suits in its ads, and it is what has happened here. > > Distribute Computer Dynamics' name wherever you can, with specific mention > that they do what they do, they're not going to stop, they hope to carbonate > your hormones and thereby sway your business judgment. Let them know that > their behavior is known to tens of thousands of engineers on Usenet. Let > them also know that commentaries on their behavior will make it onto CBBSs > and bboards (and gender-oriented mailing lists) throughout the world. If they > stand behind their ad campaign, they shouldn't mind that everyone knows > exactly what they're doing. > > Oh, almost forgot - boycott them and let them know what you're doing > (and why). It worked on Nestle, and that's a much bigger company. Well, this is an exaggeration. Net.women is not read by tens of thousands of engineers. I have no idea whether or not this company's name will make it into mailing lists or bboards--I haven't done it, and I haven't seen it on the mailing list I read. The opportunity to spread their name of course did not originate with me, since any IEEE member should have received the packet of information cards. I didn't inform Computer Dynamics of all the places I opened a discussion about their ad. I also have decided not to communicate further with Computer Dynamics about this ad--I don't have a use for their product (-: not only do I have "no time for assembly programming", I don't have much need for it :-), and the letter indicated strongly that the marketing manager would enjoy discussing the product (but wouldn't enjoy discussing the ad anymore). I don't see it worth my time unless this particular ad policy continues, in which case I may write back to IEEE since they indicated they would more carefully observe the ads, and that they did care that they might offend any of the audience, whether intended or not. Proposing boycotting is an extreme action, since I don't know whether or not they will continue with the silly ads, and the magnitude of their error seems less than that of Nestle. Boycotting Computer Dynamics might shut down one tiny company, and unless a tremendous court case grew out of it, no one would be the wiser about why. However, neither do I believe that their size is any justification for their advertising policy. What I hope is that they discontinue this policy, based on my "crank" letter and maybe other letters. If we no longer see any ads with sex selling electronics or bits, then maybe in the future other small companies won't fall prey to the what-works-for-diet-soda fallacy. If I were to write and declare I wouldn't buy their product because of the bathing suit, then I would be a just crank: I've got nothing to back me up that the only reason I wouldn't buy their product is their advertising. Bringing the discussion here has helped me. Letters I've gotten and postings here have expressed better than I could my underlying qualms. One point in particular is that of how does a woman responsible for approving the ad separate herself and her success from the ad which is offensive to the very growth in awareness of sexism that probably opened career opportunities to her, although she says she may not approve of the policy. (Although if it had been a masculine name at the end of the letter from Computer Dynamics, and I assumed it was a man writing it, I don't think I would feel any better or worse if he said he might not approve of the policy but went ahead with the ad because "sex sells".) L S Chabot UUCP: ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot ARPA: ...chabot%amber.DEC@decwrl.ARPA