And by the way, to me this commercial seems right in line with the whole “men are dolts” trope — not an exception to that tendency at all. The little boy is a kid, so it’s sentimentalized. But if in ads men are depicted as emotionally-unsophisticated, sex-obsessed, beer-obsessed, childlike mooks, it’s usually in contrast to the women in their lives, who are being bossy, nagging, but savvy and practical shoppers. This ad is just a sentimentalized version of that. There was a good discussion of why this “mook” stereotype is so popular among marketers in a Frontline documentary a few years back called The Marketing of Cool.

Totally agree about the trannies, btw.

Also, nice to hear from the fathers in the room. Thanks Jeff C. and Michael!

At the end of the day, I just really want ads to stop reinforcing so many useless cliches about the way people (men, women, children, boys, girls, etc.) supposedly behave. But I’m not counting on that.

And the youngest child receiving all the attention is definitely another valid interpretation. As long as we are using Cosby show metaphors, call it the Rudy/Olivia syndrome. Keisha Knight Pulliam was the epicenter of cute the show kept going to for its most memorable moments until she grew too old for the part-at which point Raven Symone was brought in and Rudy was shunted to the side.

“Did Hallmark misunderstand that audience in labeling girls as superficial and boys as genuine? Or were they guessing that moms might have a special feeling for their little boys?”

I don’t think they misunderstood at all. Let’s face it, this is aimed at the same kind of people who cry at “The Christmas Shoes” and think its a good piece of music. I don’t think they expect anyone in the target market to look at it any deeper than, “Oh isn’t that little boy cute! I must run out and buy one of those cards so my child can be cute like that!” And they were probably right.

I can’t “read” this commercial without imagining its intended audience, and all due respect, I don’t think that audience is (A) those who receive Father’s Day gifts; (B) adult men who buy cards for their fathers on Father’s Day or really even (C) innocent children hoping to please their daddies on Father’s Day. None of those groups really make sense for Hallmark to be targeting for this product.

I think the intended audience is adult women with kids, who are likely to say awwwwww and spend the five bucks or more on the recordable card so that Junior will melt Daddy’s heart.

And no, I don’t think gender is a coincidence here. It’s possible to imagine this ad with two older boys and a younger girl waiting her turn. But the innocent, emotional exuberance of dancing along with the goofy card vs. the pat, fashionable gifts and the bossy tones of voice … that stuff is associated with gender, especially the gender of kids. Little boys are seen as especially free from the corrupting influence of consumer culture.

By the way … portraying men as dolts in commercials? That’s also relying on tired gender tropes, and it gets on my nerves big time. It happens in commercials that target women (as in, look what idiots men are and look how superior we are) and in those that target men (as in, look how we’re just goofy big kids and trying to get away from the bossy women.) There was a great Frontline documentary a few years back that discussed this intentional depiction of men in marketing agencies.