by Lynn Mandaville
My imagination was captivated this morning by a news item buried deep inside my NPR newsfeed.
The item told of an ad from the Internet site Zola (a wedding planning service) that had been aired on the Hallmark Channel and had been subsequently pulled because it featured a lesbian couple kissing at the altar. The couple was asked, in the ad, if they felt their wedding planning would have been easier had they used Zola, to which they replied “we do!” (Cute play on their vows, right?)
Because of objections from the group One Million Moms, who believe the ad promotes homosexuality, the ad was pulled.
Then, because of objections from GLAAD (the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation), Hallmark sought to reinstate its relationship with Zola and once again run their ads.
To which Zola replied, “All kisses, couples and marriages are equal celebrations of love, and we will no longer be advertising on Hallmark.” So there.
So, are there any winners here?
Well, I guess One Million Moms have won because they won’t have “that gay agenda” shoved down their throats on the Hallmark Channel any more.
GLAAD kind of won, because their voice caused Hallmark to re-evaluate their position regarding what is equally acceptable as an expression of love between two people. But it kind of lost because Zola decided not to air their commercials, featuring a loving same-sex couple, on a dubiously conservative channel.
Zola and the Hallmark Channel lost, because Zola has given up exposure to a significant market share on cable TV, and Hallmark has lost the revenue from airing the commercials. Hallmark also has a black eye because it caved to the pressure of One Million Moms, then had to walk it back in the face of civil rights for the LGBTQ community.
But Zola also won, because this controversy brought them the kind of wide exposure that only controversy can bring, free advertising!
Lots of food for thought.
Which got me to thinking about the other ad that caused a more publicized controversy over the past week or so, the one about the Peloton exercise bike.
In the ad, a young, pretty, physically fit woman receives from her husband for Christmas a Peloton bike, and she’s delighted with the gift.
Pretty straightforward, right?
Wrong.
Social media exploded with controversy over how the commercial is sexist, misogynistic, and promotes improper messages about body image. And over a husband who allegedly feels his very fit wife needs an exercise bike in the first place. (Does he think she’s not good as she is? Does he think she’s not thin enough? Blah, blah, blah?) And over the thought put into such a gift by a spouse who could have given her something more personal and “female” like jewelry or luxury perfume.
Peloton refused to get involved in this dispute, and let the ad speak for itself.
Most people, the news said, didn’t blink an eye about the ad. Perhaps they assumed, like Gayle King did on CBS This Morning, that the wife had asked for the bike for Christmas. After all, King said, Peloton makes a good product, so why shouldn’t a caring husband give his wife a quality gift? (King said that she, personally, would welcome a Peloton treadmill for Christmas, and stated, tongue-in-cheek, the she hoped her children were watching.)
And King’s male co-hosts agreed that it would not be an insensitive gift had the wife asked for it.
But the uproar caused Peloton’s stock to drop (probably only temporarily), and the actor who has become known as the Peloton Husband has received hate mail and has been publicly derided for his participation in such a sexist ad. He and the actress who is the Peloton Wife expressed disappointment that the ad was construed as anything more than promoting fitness and a healthy lifestyle.
So, are there winners and losers here, as in the Hallmark instance?
Well, to me there is only one winner/slash loser, and that is Peloton. They have experienced a temporary dip in the stock market. But they are a company that caters to upscale buyers and serious fitness people, so they will likely rally quickly.
And, like Zola, they have received what controversy supplies abundantly, and that is free advertising.
These two examples of public outrage are symptoms of a nation’s hypersensitivity.
We are willing to divide over issues as unimportant as advertising.
Can not Americans simply gloss over the barrage of crass commercialism in our society? Can not Americans just not buy what’s being hawked?
If you object to same sex marriages and want to punish the companies who cater to them, don’t employ them!
If you object to how you perceive a commercial for an exercise bike, don’t buy it!
It isn’t necessary for every person on social media to express his or her personal outrage over political correctness, real or imagined. It isn’t necessary to make mountains out of molehills, because it devalues our distress over bigger, more important issues that deserve righteous outrage, like poverty, homelessness, hunger, failing education, meaningless wars abroad…
Don’t misunderstand my opinion. Do I think we misplace emphasis on body image sometimes? Do I think we misjudge the fact that love is love is love is love, when it comes to alternative relationships to the traditional boy-girl arrangement?
Yes, and yes.
But not everything rises to the level of a federal case.
A collective deep breath is in order, as well as a moment’s reflection about how important these events will be in five days, or five weeks, or five months.
Because in a very brief time, these differences of opinion will not matter one little bit.
Peace.
Hear, hear!
Love your articles, Lynn!