Armani Code – Ad Analysis

The focus of this examination will feature one ad from the June/July 2010 issue of Esquire magazine. The product attempting to be sold is a cologne called Armani Code. The caption reads, “ARMANI code, the ultimate code of seduction for men”. A bottle of the fragrance is shown in the lower right hand corner, possibly so that it can be identified the next time the viewer is at the store. The advertisement itself is simple, with the only people depicted are one man and one woman. The lighting is done in black and white in order to create an atmosphere of class and formality. The background is black, leaving the exact location of the pair in the realm of the unknown in order to make the viewer imagine a scene. This in turn personalizes the advertisement to a degree. Both models are well dressed with the man being shown in a suit and the women in what appears to be a formal, though presumably revealing dress. Their body language leaves little room for interpretation. The woman is pressed against the man’s body, clutching to him as if they were one symbiotic organism. It is presumed that this is to give an aura of submission and dependency. Her eyes are closed and her face is pressed against the man’s neck, presumably mere moments away from locking her lips onto his neck. Her face is flawless, her hair well kept, and her body slender and curvy. The man is representative of his gender as well. He’s strong-jawed and clean shaven, with well carved features. Neither person has a trace of flab or fat. He faces away from the woman, staring off camera. He is well dressed, but the top button on his collared shirt is undone, in order to give him a bit more of a “roguish” appearance that slightly contradicts the formal atmosphere. Unlike the woman, he is firm jawed and his glare is intense, presenting a demeanor of independence and control. The passion the woman directs toward him isn’t reciprocated as his face is for the most part blank. It’s almost as if he’s watching television while the woman is enraptured by her submission to him. In the separation of the genders, it is rather clear who the dominant force of this ad is supposed to be.

In modern society, ads and advertising are everywhere. Corporations use every tool at their disposal in order to get the consumer to buy their products. Because of its prevalence, advertising transcends simple product display and becomes symbolic of cultural values and social norms. Increasingly, sex and sexuality are often used as tools of conveying the message to purchase. But how so and in what way? Is it a realistic portrayal? Is it representative and equal, or does it stratify sexualities? Does it empower or does it subjugate?

Advertising has to identify with the target demographic in order to sell a product. As such it is a reflection on the culture in which it is trying to sell something to, rather than a mere presentation of what is available for purchase. A truly effective advertisement tells the viewer that they are missing something and/or are not good enough without their product. In short, “Advertising tells us who we are and what we should be” (Kilbourne 2000). It presents to its audience the promises of perfection and fulfillment. All they have to do is buy the product.

So what does this particular ad tell us? On the surface it presents a form of ideal beauty for both genders. Both are presumably Caucasian. Neither person’s skin has a single blemish, pockmark, or flaw. It’s almost as if they were both delicately crafted from a pillar of marble. Both are fit and their bodies taunt as an ounce of body fat is nowhere to be seen. Since this ad appeared in a men’s magazine, as well as advertising a men’s cologne as opposed to a perfume, the primary recipients of this advertisement is men. The message to men is to be cool, unconcerned, and dominant, yet look like a chiseled Greek god. Women are to be beautiful (if not flawless) and silent, clinging to you and being little more than an accessory, like a tie or a watch. Both are dehumanized, but the woman is to a much larger extent. She is passive and submissive, as if she couldn’t stand existence without a strong, dominant man in her life.

This ad also gives only one version of sexuality. It portrays quintessential sex as only between heterosexual partners. The phrase “Ultimate code of seduction for men” implies that seduction and coital relationships are appropriate only between the two sexes and not when the partners are of the same sex. Is it not possible that homosexual men can buy this product? Can’t the “Ultimate code of seduction for men” also apply to gay men? Yet this concept is grounded in one of Rubin’s hindrances to her radical theory of sexuality, a hierarchy of sexual acts. She writes, “Modern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchal system” (Rubin 1984:11). With this concept in mind, this advertisement can be interpreted to ignore homosexual men’s relationships, placing heterosexual romantic interactions above them. The ad lies well within the “charmed circle”, as the relationship portrayed is heterosexual and presumably monogamous. Neither models’ ring fingers are visible, leaving marriage to the realm of speculation though not implausibility. As such, this ad paints sex and sexuality in a heterosexist light, with little regard for sexual variation.
Their postures and positions also speak of being highly gendered. The man’s image dominates the entire ad space, while the woman’s barely takes up a third. His shoulders are set, occupying the most physical space possible, while the women’s shoulders are hunched, trying to take up as little as possible. This is not unintentional. Martin writes, “Men and women and girls and boys fill social space within their bodies in different ways” (Martin 1998:237). She uses her study on preschool children to elaborate on the conditioning of little boys and girls to either respectively take up more and less physical space. Taking up space is perceived as an act of dominance, a method of control over one’s surroundings. The body language in this ad is to a significant degree the product of social conditioning, rather than being innate. The women’s posture and position is of particular note as Bordo writes, “Female bodies become docile bodies” (Bordo 1993:432). This is clearly the case in this example as the woman in this ad is non-threatening and passive simply because our society expects women to be submissive and dependent. In turn, the man’s posture speaks of power. “A man’s presence is dependent upon the promise of power which he embodies. If the promise is large and credible his presence is striking” (Berger, 1972:45). Clearly the man’s image in this ad is large as it takes up the most space. He has credibility in that he is not only good-looking, but very well dressed. He appears as if he could be any number of respected professionals, such as a lawyer or a doctor. As such he is more credible in the eyes of the viewer than if he were to appear with a McDonald’s hat or Wal-Mart apron. In short, the posture and positioning of both models serves to reinforce the reader’s presumed gender stereotypes and establish credibility as a result of his/her preconceived notions.

The women’s appearance also serves as an influence on the surveyor’s notion of female attractiveness. She is petite, with a well-sculpted, yet soft face with flawless skin. Her hair is shiny and well kept. Obviously she has been digitally altered to appear more attractive. What this does however is again reinforce the emphasis of how women should look (Kilbourne 2000). This is done simply to sell the fragrance based on what heterosexual men believe a woman should look like. “Beauty is a currency system like the gold standard…” (Wolf 1991:12). Wolf then goes on to state that this causes a stratification based upon social standards that devalues those who fail to be in the upper levels. The model in the Armani Code ad is certainly attractive, but what does that say to men about women who exist in real life? With computer imaging, this standard becomes neigh impossible. Women become subjugated to these unrealistic expectations, all in the name of pleasing a man, simply because that’s what society tells them to do. As such, this ad serves as a reinforcement of a standard of attractiveness that is unattainable and forces women to waste time, money, and energy to meet it.

In conclusion, while it may be only one example, the Armani Code advertisement is an exemplar of advertising both creating and reinforcing gender expectations. It tells its male audience that men are to be dominant and in control, while women should be passive and pretty. It says that the most acceptable type of relationship is purely heterosexual and monogamous. It is only one example of many of the propagation of a single story of sex and sexuality.