"Engineered for men": the rise of "Yorkie" advertising

The ADgenda: this week's most offensive advert.

IWC’s new advertising campaign has been released in cinemas, currently thundering over the big screen in all its majestic manly glory. I first saw it played before the new Bond film, so naturally I was already on edge for flippant sexism. However, the bulk of the advert has no problems (other than a failure to mention time-telling at any point). For the most part we are just enjoying fighter pilots swooping around and ships crashing through waves while IWC journey through their various partnerships. On the big screen, this drama makes us feel like we are all part of these journeys. But at the very end, we realise that we are not. The punchline is the final phrase “engineered for men”.

After watching soul-lightening accomplishments and adventures through seas and skies, this tagline really stings. There is a noticeable emphasis from the narrator on the “for men”, as if I have been slapped on the wrist for showing interest in something that isn’t compatible for my gender. I am reminded of the Yorkie bar’s advertising campaign “it’s not for girls!”, but that slogan only feels like a “no girls allowed” sign hung on the blanket fort built by your little brother (and anyway, serves more as reverse psychology than divisive marketing). This, however, feels like Grown-Up Sexism. They sell men’s watches, so they must be defined to be as masculine as possible, not just in their bulky style but in the images conveying male brawn so bold you can smell the sweating: fighter planes, boats in storms, diving barefoot with sharks – it all builds up to this brazen slogan “engineered for men”.

IWC know their market. You’re male? Good, you’ll be shooting guns through the sky and wrestling wild animals, you’ll need to tell time on something engineered. You’re female? Honey, you don’t need engineering. Here, have something decorated or fashioned. Have fun shopping, and stay away from Yorkie bars.

IWC’s new advertising campaign. Photograph: youtube.com
Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Amber Rudd's report on the benefits of EU immigration is better late than never

The study will strengthen the case for a liberal post-Brexit immigration system. 

More than a year after vowing to restrict EU immigration, the government has belatedly decided to investigate whether that's a good idea. Home Secretary Amber Rudd has asked the independent Migration Advisory Committee to report on the costs and benefits of free movement to the British economy.

The study won't conclude until September 2018 - just six months before the current Brexit deadline and after the publication of the government's immigration white paper. But in this instance, late is better than never. If the report reflects previous studies it will show that EU migration has been an unambiguous economic benefit. Immigrants pay far more in tax than they claim in benefits and sectors such as agriculture, retail and social care depend on a steady flow of newcomers. 

Amber Rudd has today promised businesses and EU nationals that there will be no "cliff edge" when the UK leaves the EU, while immigration minister Brandon Lewis has seemingly contradicted her by baldly stating: "freedom of movement ends in the spring of 2019". The difference, it appears, is explained by whether one is referring to "Free Movement" (the official right Britain enjoys as an EU member) or merely "free movement" (allowing EU migrants to enter the newly sovereign UK). 

More important than such semantics is whether Britain's future immigration system is liberal or protectionist. In recent months, cabinet ministers have been forced to acknowledge an inconvenient truth: Britain needs immigrants. Those who boasted during the referendum of their desire to reduce the number of newcomers have been forced to qualify their remarks. Brexit Secretary David Davis, for instance, recently conceded that immigration woud not invariably fall after the UK leaves the EU. "I cannot imagine that the policy will be anything other than that which is in the national interest, which means that from time to time we’ll need more, from time to time we’ll need less migrants." 

In this regard, it's striking that Brandon Lewis could not promise that the "tens of thousands" net migration target would be met by the end of this parliament (2022) and that Rudd's FT article didn't even reference it. As George Osborne helpfully observed earlier this year, no senior cabinet minister (including Rudd) supports the policy. When May departs, whether this year or in 2019, she will likely take the net migration target with her. 

In the meantime, even before the end of free movement, net migration has already fallen to its lowest level since 2014 (248,000), while EU citizens are emigrating at the fastest rate for six years (117,000 left in 2016). The pound’s depreciation (which makes British wages less competitive), the spectre of Brexit and a rise in hate crimes and xenophobia are among the main deterrents. If the report does its job, it will show why the UK can't afford for that trend to continue. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.