Lads' mags and cheap lager: the Fosters ad belongs in the 90s

The ADgenda: This week's most offensive ad.

You'd think by now that tired old sexist stereotypes would have died a well overdue death. After all, no one benefitted from them - the well worn route of wife/girlfriend as ball and chain was offensive to women and patronising to any self-respecting male with a modicum of intelligence. In the 90s (the era of lads' mags and cheap lager) the marketing ideal seemed to be geared towards some sort of loveless existence where the very sight of your other half had you reaching for the cyanide. Women were inadequate versions of men, and the only appropriate response was to mock or have sex with them. But apparently this neanderthal view still has life in it if the new Fosters ad is anything to go by.

There are some ads that make you wish you could erase the memory from your brain the moment you've finished watching. This one falls squarely into that category as a whiney girlfriend rings the Fosters lad helpline to complain that her boyfriend never listens to her, bang on cue the "lads" give her some vague platitudes and leave her to gripe on the other side of the telephone as they continue with the important task of chugging down can after can of the brown watery stuff - necessary because this lager is so weak it would take a gallon and multiple trips to the bathroom before you started to feel even mildly woozy. She is satisfied with this diluted advice, because she is a silly woman, and ends the  call sighing something along the lines of: "I wish my boyfriend was as good a listener as you boys". Bam, fooled her, stupid women!

In the world this ad has created no one is a winner. Woman is stupid and neglected, man is bored and boorish. And both will sit at the dinner table dissatisfied and frustrated - in ad world, the battle of the sexes is raging.

Good call! Photograph: Getty Images
Getty
Show Hide image

The economics of outrage: Why you haven't seen the end of Katie Hopkins

Her distasteful tweet may have cost her a job at LBC, but this isn't the last we've seen of Britain's biggest troll. 

Another atrocity, other surge of grief and fear, and there like clockwork was the UK’s biggest troll. Hours after the explosion at the Manchester Arena that killed 22 mostly young and female concert goers, Katie Hopkins weighed in with a very on-brand tweet calling for a “final solution” to the complex issue of terrorism.

She quickly deleted it, replacing the offending phrase with the words “true solution”, but did not tone down the essentially fascist message. Few thought it had been an innocent mistake on the part of someone unaware of the historical connotations of those two words.  And no matter how many urged their fellow web users not to give Hopkins the attention she craved, it still sparked angry tweets, condemnatory news articles and even reports to the police.

Hopkins has lost her presenting job at LBC radio, but she is yet to lose her column at Mail Online, and it’s quite likely she won’t.

Mail Online and its print counterpart The Daily Mail have regularly shown they are prepared to go down the deliberately divisive path Hopkins was signposting. But even if the site's managing editor Martin Clarke was secretly a liberal sandal-wearer, there are also very good economic reasons for Mail Online to stick with her. The extreme and outrageous is great at gaining attention, and attention is what makes money for Mail Online.

It is ironic that Hopkins’s career was initially helped by TV’s attempts to provide balance. Producers could rely on her to provide a counterweight to even the most committed and rational bleeding-heart liberal.

As Patrick Smith, a former media specialist who is currently a senior reporter at BuzzFeed News points out: “It’s very difficult for producers who are legally bound to be balanced, they will sometimes literally have lawyers in the room.”

“That in a way is why some people who are skirting very close or beyond the bounds of taste and decency get on air.”

But while TV may have made Hopkins, it is online where her extreme views perform best.  As digital publishers have learned, the best way to get the shares, clicks and page views that make them money is to provoke an emotional response. And there are few things as good at provoking an emotional response as extreme and outrageous political views.

And in many ways it doesn’t matter whether that response is negative or positive. Those who complain about what Hopkins says are also the ones who draw attention to it – many will read what she writes in order to know exactly why they should hate her.

Of course using outrageous views as a sales tactic is not confined to the web – The Daily Mail prints columns by Sarah Vine for a reason - but the risks of pushing the boundaries of taste and decency are greater in a linear, analogue world. Cancelling a newspaper subscription or changing radio station is a simpler and often longer-lasting act than pledging to never click on a tempting link on Twitter or Facebook. LBC may have had far more to lose from sticking with Hopkins than Mail Online does, and much less to gain. Someone prepared to say what Hopkins says will not be out of work for long. 

0800 7318496