dib20212 Advertising - What's Up with That Marshall Field's?

This article originally appeared in the December 2002 edition of diversityinbusiness.com

What's Up With That???

Marshall Field's Trips on It's Pedestal

Occasionally we come across commercial spots and print ads that are so offensive we're left wondering whether the intent is to sell or offend. Recently, a diversity-friendly retailer tipped the scales with a sexist print ad for a clothing line. The ad was shot by a big named photographer, so maybe the retailer thinks it's art. Art or degradation? You decide.

Pictured above is Marshall Field's Clean-Cut print ad as it appeared in the Chicago Tribune on Sunday, November 26, 2002.

by Dan Perkins It hurts when a role model errs - especially when that role model is at the forefront of diversity in advertising. However, just as we are quick to praise work well done, we will not ignore what we regard as a major lapse in judgment. We publish this website, in part, to recognize organizations that advance diversity and employ marketing campaigns that present diverse populations in a positive light. We believe corporations need to know that minority communities want businesses to respect them and their cultures the way businesses respect the bottom-line. Women also desire respect. Unfortunately, not every corporation understands that, and even the more enlightened ones occasionally regress with actions that offend rather than endear. At diversityinbusiness.com, we feel a special obligation to point out woeful errors, especially when those errors constitute public endorsements of racist or sexist sentiments. We will explore major marketing errors in this column, which is entitled What’s Up With That? Our first entry is a print ad that appeared in the November 24, 2002 Sunday edition of the Chicago Tribune. The ad was placed by Marshall Field's, a division of the Target Corporation, (formerly Dayton Hudson Corporation), which is the nation's fourth-largest retailer with headquarters in Minneapolis , Minnesota . Marshall Field's is a company that deserves praise on many levels. It has long been a significant contributor to the commerce and culture of Chicago . In September, Marshall Field’s celebrated its 150^th anniversary. The main store, which sits on the corner of State Street and Randolph Street , is a Chicago landmark. Marshall Field's is to Chicago what Macy's is to New York , or Harrods is to London . It is a Chicago icon. Although Marshall Field's prominence is rooted in the Midwest , the retailer is widely respected for its support of the arts and diversity. This summer, Marshall Field's became lead sponsor of the Black Harvest International Festival of Film and Video - an event covered extensively in this website. Presently, the retailer is garnering praise for its holiday television commercials, which feature African American vocalists. Considering all the things the company does well, one has to wonder how Marshall Field’s could go so wrong with a print ad for a London clothier.

The offending ad features an image photographed by Victor Skrebneski, a celebrated photographer with a long and distinguished career. The image is entitled Clean-Cut. It is the 11th in a series of Skrebneski photographs commissioned by Marshall Field's. Throughout his career, Skrebneski has photographed fashion models and celebrities. His enduring images demonstrate a distinct ability to capture the sensual essence of many of his subjects. However, like many other artists, Skrebneski has also produced controversial works - and Clean-Cut is one of them. It is anything but clean cut. It is graphic, shocking and sexually exploitive. When an artist offends for artistic purposes, that's one thing. When the motive is commercially driven or sponsored, the offense is a very different matter. Al Jolsen may have been a great entertainer, but his artistry was diminished when he donned black-face and sang Mammy and other minstrel songs. His black-faced performances mimicked the subjugated status of African Americans at the turn of the 20th century and fulfilled two purposes: they made white audiences feel superior and they fattened Jolsen’s wallet. When commerce is involved, both the artist and his or her sponsor are fair targets for the outrage of offended communities. This is especially true when a commercial artist denigrates a race of people, or in this case, denigrates women to achieve monetary profit.
	If we put aside Mr. Skrebneski's acclaim and simply look at the image he calls Clean-Cut, the offensive nature of the work is obvious. The ad features a bare-chested man holding a hose in front of a woman who is elevated on a platform behind a glass wall. We can assume the woman is standing inside a ground floor display window since that caption under the photo reads: THE VIEW FROM STATE STREET. The man is aiming the hose and its misting spray of water at the woman's breasts. Although the woman is behind the glass, her mouth is wide open, as if to scream or catch the misty spray. Her eyes are shut as her hair explodes around her face. The woman, mounted in red stiletto shoes, stands amidst multi-colored electrical cords snaking around one ankle and along the display floor.
Her legs are spread apart. She appears to tilt back - ever so slightly. Her knees frame the man's face and line up just above the nozzle of the hose. Her arms are raised as if they are held in place by chains. The upper half of the woman is shrouded in a cuff-linked dressed shirt. Belting her waist is a dressed tie - presumably silk.
All of that to sell a shirt one hardly notices. For the record, I’m no prude. I know sex sells, and it sells many things quite effectively. However, Skrebneski's image isn't about selling or sexuality. It's about hosing a woman, and reducing her to a mere receptacle for a misting hose. It is degrading and there is nothing sensual about it - no shared intimacy, no mutual gratification, no seduction, no joy - just a wash down. If I had a daughter, I would like to spend part of our Sundays going through the day's paper. I believe parents should encourage their children to read newspapers and one way they can do that is to read the paper with them. But I would hate for my daughter - or my son for that matter - to see Skrebneski's image. I cannot imagine how anyone who respects women could see that image and not ask the question: What's Up With That? It is unfortunate that anyone had to see it. Thankfully, American society has progressed to a place where we no longer seek performers in black-face to entertain us. Perhaps we can mature to a point where we no longer debase women to sell merchandise. I thought it appropriate to provide Marshall Field's an opportunity to respond. I posed a few questions and invited the company to give us their perspective. Click here for the response.

Click to return to top