COMMERCIAL MANIAC

Ah, Gardasil! Not sure what it is? It is a new vaccine that is now being marketed to help prevent the occurrence of certain strains of the Human Papillomavirus which can cause cervical cancer in women. As we all know, any kind of cancer is to be taken seriously. Considering the fact that most people know of at least one person with cancer, any steps toward the eradication of any form of this disease is significant and important for all of us.

Now that I have gotten my disclaimer out of the way, let's get into a discussion of the commercial. The Gardasil commercial hit television screens about 2 months ago and I must confess that although I got the message - be "One Less Statistic" by getting the vaccine, this commercial left me with a sour taste in my mouth.

The commercial, like most advertisements targeting women, starts out by showing various girls and women doing what girls and women do. Jogging, painting, riding in the car with their mothers and even skateboarding. In my view, the majority of the portrayals convey seriousness, strength and stability by showing seemingly healthy women doing, as I noted previously, what girls and women do. However, towards the end of the commercial, the viewer is introduced to a set of 4 women who are apparently steppers. (For more on the art form of Stepping, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Step_dance). Now, technically there is nothing wrong with showing a group of young women stepping, but, I found their portrayal confusing and even distasteful because upon seeing them I was reminded of the caricatures and stereotypical portrayals of certain groups in American society.

As mentioned before, the majority of the girls and women you see in the commercial are serious (after all cervical cancer is a serious issue, right?), but upon seeing these steppers I think that the advertisers ran out of ideas and threw in a caricature out of sheer laziness. Why mess up the flow of the commercial? Why not be consistent? I must note that there are other black women in the commercial and their portrayal is not only tasteful but consistent with the rest of the commercial. But, why did the inconsistency in this commercial have to occur while portraying a group of young black girls? There is no context for what these young ladies are doing and its placement in the commercial as mentioned does not flow with anything else. The imagery also reminded me of a little issue that pops up in my mind very often - that black people tend to only be 'seen' by the greater society when they are entertaining. The young girls are jumping around, clapping their hands and speaking in high pitched voices. This is reminiscent of old color and black and white cartoons of black people with big, pink lips, always willing to put a smile on some white master's face. Sorry to go there, but unfortunately, we live in a world where people use stereotypes, some more negative than others, as a reference point when dealing with those that are considered 'the other'. I, therefore, cannot ignore my reaction. I also cannot ignore the fact that negative stereotypes affect how we as a society interact with others everyday, even in commercials.

Now, to be fair, it's possible that the advertisers had absolutely no intention of conveying imagery that would seem to make a mockery of black girls or be insulting to any viewers. Remember, I already blamed this 'mistake' on laziness. Nonetheless, the portrayal of the young black girls does rely on stereotypes and does detract from the aesthetic value of this commercial.

I recently saw another version of the Gardasil commercial and I am happy to report that this commercial (Gardasil Commercial #1) was consistent in its portrayals. All the women shown, regardless of age or color, appeared serious and strong. No negative stereotypes here. I am glad that the company, for whatever reason, chose to re-edit their commercial. But, if you are interested in seeing both versions, please visit http://www.gardasil.com/tv-commercial2-for-gardasil.html for the version I pan (Commercial #2). For the re-edited version, please look below. Thanks for reading and please take the time to let me know what you think.