1. Whose message is this? Who created or paid for it? Why?

Method paid for this ad.  It ran as a viral video on YouTube and other internet venues in an effort to bring full disclosure to product labeling through the Household Product Labeling Act.  It’s intended to be a parody of the “scrubbing bubbles” from another brand of cleaning product.

2. Who is the “target audience”? What is their age, ethnicity, class, profession, interests, etc.? What words, images or sounds suggest this?

White middle class adult females, ages 35-50. Based on what we know about the product, perhaps the target audience is also environmentally conscious, college educated, and has a disposable income.  We can infer this target audience through the images of the woman and the bathroom we see in the ad.  A secondary audience could be straight men who find voyeurism and the discomfort of women to be funny.

3. What is the “text” of the message? (What we actually see and/or hear: written or spoken words, photos, drawings, logos, design, music, sounds, etc.)

We see a bathroom setting.  The first few seconds, we see a white, smiling woman interacting with animated bubbles from a bathroom cleaner called “Shiny Suds.”  Then, this woman tells her family that she’ll have breakfast in 20 minutes, and then hops into the shower.  In the shower, soap and chemical residue bubbles (presumably a mockery of Dow Chemical’s scrubbing bubbles cleaner) come to life and discuss they are part of a toxic chemical reside left over from traditional cleaners.  Then, they begin to shout sexually harassing comments at this woman while she showers.  As a result, we see her discomfort as she tries to cover her naked body.  The bubbles continue hooting at the woman in a wolf-pack mentality chant (“loofah, loofah”) and then the commercial ends with the bubbles singing the Shiny Suds jingle.  We see print on the screen that mentions the awareness of chemicals in cleaners.  Finally, we see the woman through the shower curtain hurriedly showering.  The brand name (Method) is mentioned and the website “people against dirty.com” appears on screen.

4. What is the “subtext” of the message? (What do you think is the hidden or unstated meaning?)

If you use just “any” brand of cleaner, you will have chemical residue in your bathtub; Verbalizing comments about a woman’s body are an everyday part of life; It’s normal for a woman to feel ashamed about her body; A woman deserves to be sexually harassed since she herself brought the chemicals into her bathroom; It’s okay for a company to offend people when they are trying to make a point.  The “scrubbing bubbles” from the other brand of cleaner are offensive, unclean characters.

5. What kind of lifestyle is presented? Is it glamorized? How?

The woman’s lifestyle seems to be centered around the traditional white middle class family where the “woman of the house” is responsible for cleaning the bathroom and preparing meals.

6. What values are expressed?

The values evoked in this ad are layered:  First we see values related to having a clean, chemical-free home.  As the ad continues, we see values that support misogynistic, male-dominant/female submissive culture.

7. What “tools of persuasion” are used?

Fear - Bad things are happening to this woman because she didn’t use the “right” cleaner.

Plain folks - This woman is a paid model and is supposed to represent an ordinary woman.

Symbols - Powerlessness and shame is symbolized through the woman’s body language and through the words chanted by the bubbles.

See "The language of persuasion"

8. What positive messages are presented? What negative messages are presented?

There are positive messages about having a clean, chemical-free bathroom and negative messages that center around supporting sexism in our media culture.

9. What groups of people does this message empower? What groups does it disempower? How does this serve the media maker's interests?

This message empowers the creators of the ad, Droga5, because they are getting their name in the public as a result of this controversial ad.  It also empowers all of the people who watch this ad and say, “I don’t know what the big deal is; people should just lighten up.”

This message disempowers women through the ad’s clear message of objectification and sexism. 

This ad was made to help Method increase their profits and Droga5 to become a savvier player in the advertising industry.  However, this tactic may have backfired (see untold story).

10.  What part of the story is not being told?  How and where could you get more information about the untold stories? 

This ad was pulled shortly after its debut because of complaints to Method about the offensive content.  Method executives have since apologized for running this ad.  Several blogs and websites have comments from consumers saying they will no longer purchase or support Method because of this ad’s content. Please see the following links for comments:

http://adage.com/article?article_id=140830
http://jezebel.com/5413949/cleaning-company-pulls-shiny-suds-video-apologizes-for-any-offense-we-caused

Interestingly enough, Reebok is currently airing ads for running shoes that also objectify women. These ads have not been pulled.  The following link shows the series of Reebok ads: 

http://jezebel.com/5410315/make-your-boobs-jealous-reeboks-easytone-ad-campaign-is-an-epic-fail

Another untold story is the countless filters an ad must go through before it gets approval to run.  Ad execs create the ad and discuss it at many different departments of a corporation including production managers, art directors, account executives and supervisors.  From here, it gets pitched to the client (in this case, Method). Then it goes to focus groups who represent the public.  It seems no one in any stage of this process apparently thought there would be public disapproval.