Gibson, Titus and Gender Roles in Political Ads
Other Nevada bloggers have covered the new Gibson ad that attacks Titus, using her thoughtless statements about Northern Nevadans against her. But as usual, the minx has a little different angle. Normally in campaign ads, the same narrators are chosen as an effort to brand a candidate, so I wanted to know why Gibson’s positive ad has a male narrator and his negative ad has a female narrator.
The minx suspected the political ads just might reflect our gender biases. For instance in market research, female voices are perceived as comforting and truthful while male voices are perceived at more humorous or authoritative (isn’t that some sort of contradiction?). So boys, does that mean we can’t trust anything you say, but we still believe you when you say it? No wonder some of the doofiest of politicians keep getting elected.
To me anyway, this begs the question, why aren’t female voice-over actors used in all political ads that aren’t meant to be funny? Isn’t truth the most important quality in an add when you are trying to convince someone to vote for a particular candidate? Apparently not, because 60% or political ads are narrated by men. What does it all mean? Apparently it means that when a man provides the voice over, it matters less to the audience that he is truthful as long as his voice is perceived as authoritative. That says a lot (or really, very little) about what the American commercial viewing audience expects or wants from our politicians.
And following straight down the two lane gender role highway, according to Democratic media consultant Ben Goddard:
Women also are regularly tapped to narrate spots dealing with “touchy-feely” issues, such as health care and Social Security, Ames said. By contrast, men are more likely to get cast for ads dealing with issues such as taxation or government regulation.
Here we go down the familiar road again. The female voice-over actor is everyone’s warm and loving mother, while the male voice over actor is everyone’s stern, cerebral father. See how far we’ve come!
But there is a special role women voice-over actors play in political advertising. According to veteran Democratic media strategist Ray Strother of Strother-Duffy-Shelton, women voice-over actors are used in attack ads because they have a “velvet sledgehammer” effect.
But really, isn’t it the scolding mother saying “I told you so effect?” And notice how the Gibson attack ad is all about whether or not you can trust Titus? My theory on why people would rather listen to a woman in an attack ad than a man? Its easier to take because the female voice is perceived as less powerful–people are used to disregarding it so its less threatening. Its amazing how little our perceptions of men and women have changed over time, but not surprising.
Similar Posts:
Enjoy this post? Leave a comment below or subscribe to my feed. You also can sign up for email delivery by clicking here.
Trackbacks & Pingbacks
[...] Damn. I guess Krolicki was going for the naughty velvet sledgehammer effect. With a name like Krolicki, he might want to be careful how hard he goes at Woolllen. And can I say what a shame it is that Titus and Krolicki aren’t running against each other–that would be the bad porn name matchup of the decade at least. [...]
Comments
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.