ing old, but I reckon that most advertising nowadays has a pretty tenuous connection to the product its selling. I recently watched the TV première of Attack the Block in which every ad break was taken up with an interactive story of a writer called Brandon Generator – I think this was publicity for Microsoft but it seemed to be mostly about coffee and typing and Edgar Wright. Advertising uses sex and fashion to sell cars, clothes, films, music, and much more so why not science? As Gill Kirkup, one of the few women brave enough to come out as liking the ad, asks on her blog: ‘I am not sure what ads do achieve – but aren’t they about provoking desire?’
Perhaps the problem is that the under-representation of women in science means that pretty much every image of women scientists is subject to such close scrutiny that none of them can hold up. Gill goes on to write: ‘I think stereotyping theory is not serving us well. It has become self referential and a kind of black box theory which explains everything and nothing. Show pictures of conventionally attractive young women in flattering ways and such images are criticised as being stereotypes. Show unconventional attractive/unattractive women doing science in unflattering [‘realistic’ ways] and they are criticised as stereotyping women scientists as not being attractive/sexy and that girls won’t relate to them – desire to be like them. Show men doing science and ….well you know where I am going with this one.’
This raises the question of what kind of advert its critics want to see. This one really is over to you now as Curt Rice has suggested crowd sourcing ideas for a new promo – so why not enter the contest to design your own video or just post a comment sharing your reaction to the promo.
Heather Mendick, Brunel University, UK