My employer recently footed the bill for a subscription to Linux Journal for me (how cool is that?). I received my first issue this week, dove into it, and was floored by the 5th page.
No, not by some fantastic article, not by the ToC, by an advertisement. An advertisement by QSOL.com Server Appliances. WARNING, implied sexual content: see it here.
I sighed and figured this was going to be par for the course for a tech magazine. I mentioned it to the LinuxChix and that’s when someone said “Isn’t that ad really old?” Nope, August 2007 LinuxJournal! But then this link was produced: AllBusiness.com: Nerd Humor:
With geek chic no longer as alluring as it once was, one company has reverted to slamming nerds in its advertising but in the process has invoked the ire of a women’s tech group in Silicon Valley.
An ad touting Qsol’s computer hardware products that ran in November’s Linux Journal features a photograph of a heavily lipsticked woman next to the headline “Don’t feel bad. Our servers won’t go down on you either.” Small print goes on to suggest, “If your server isn’t giving you what you want, call Qsol.”
Yikes! That’s almost the SAME advertisement! When is this article from? Monday, December 11 2000
2000?!
The article goes on to say:
Joe Safai, Qsol’s president, says the ad boosted sales significantly, but he has issued an apology and promises not to run it again. “Obviously it pissed off a lot of people. We’re not into that,” he says.
So has the desire to boost sales again with the same advertisement they got into trouble with in 2000 caused them to intentionally break this promise and not care if they piss off a lot of people AGAIN? Or a case of “any press is good press” (to which I’d be playing into)? Or did someone in marketing just find it in an old file and think it was clever? Whatever the case, it’s time for me to write a couple angry letters.
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 8:31
FWIW (and speaking as a male), a woman’s face wearing all that warpaint is a complete turnoff. Yuk.
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 9:27
Sex (or implied sex) to sell servers???
I really don’t get the juvenile mind set that is still rampant in business today. Just a bunch of boys playing at being grownups and failing miserably.
The publishers of the mag are promoting this moronic mentality and are of the same ilk as the company with their lipstick smeared servers. I think “Joe” hoped his “apology” had been forgotten.
Have just one word for them, starts with a “W” and rhymes with Bankers.
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 9:28
Sexism is a plague. I can barely bring myself to talk to many geeks, much less read the advertisements designed to appeal to them. I’m glad there are people paying attention so that when the inappropriate expression of a latent issue crosses the line, they can speak out. I wish, however, that I felt the underlying issue were being addressed as effectively.
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 10:21
How is this sexism? Why the outrage? It’s funny, laugh!
Normal adults have sex. It’s a fun part of life. Some of us even give/receive oral sex. It’s a fun variation on regular old sex, and in all the relationships I’ve been in, both parties enjoyed giving/receiving.
Sexism, according to wikipedia, is “… commonly considered to be discrimination and/or hatred against people based on their sex rather than their individual merits, but can also refer to any and all systemic differentiations based on the sex of the individuals.”
I fail to see how this advertisement is sexist. Who’s the discrimator? Who’s the discriminatee?
All I see is a tired old joke about how geeks don’t get laid. Or at least don’t get blowjobs from tarted-up women. I can assure you that neither case is true, but it’s still kinda funny.
Not as funny as this tempest in a teapot, though.
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 10:46
KittyKat: Some people don’t mind, but I don’t appreciate being reduced to a sexual object.
It’s advertisements like this in tech magazines that further the stereotype that computing is for men, not women. It compounds the idea that as a woman I am clearly not the target audience. I should probably give up on tech entirely and resume my accounting career, or, better yet, just get back in bed.
Many people not intimately familiar with issues facing women in IT might not know this, but many women have left IT because of the overwhelming feeling that they don’t fit in, are constantly reduced to sexual objects, and are discriminated against mercilessly. I would like to see MORE women get into IT and things like this don’t help at all.
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 11:23
@pleia2: I still don’t see how the ad reduces YOU to a sexual object. It’s not a picture of you, is it?
As for the “objectification of women” argument, I don’t really buy it. It’s an advertisement. She’s a model. In the abstract sense, yes, she’s an object. But so is anyone else who models for an advertisement. You don’t get the backstory for that guy in the Gucci sunglasses ad, do you?
(Successful) Advertisements are designed to be attention-getting. To that end, the contents of an ad are props. Be they a bowl of fruit, a flashy car, or an attractive human. Props, objects. Part of designing an ad is knowing the target audience, and ensuring that your ad will be looked at instead of skipped.
Would you argue with the assertion that the majority of this company’s target audience is straight white males with IT-decision-making responsibilities? QSOL’s agenda is to sell product, and in order to do that, they need to reach the largest number of people who could make a decision to buy their products. They try to do that by designing ads are are likely to be looked at by their target audience.
That’s not sexism; it’s business. Sure, they could have designed an ad to be completely sex-neutral, but it wouldn’t have been as attention-catching. They could have used a picture of some hunky guy instead, but given the overwhelming majority of straight white males in IT, that would have been stupid.
I’m not unsympathetic to the plight of geek girls — I just hate to see misdirected energy. Self-righteousness is never pretty, and it’s definitely not fun.
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 11:37
Honestly I think a picture of a hunky guy with that text would have gotten MORE attention :)
If I don’t like an advertisement for whatever reason (whether you or anyone else respects my opinion and experience or not), I complain the company and don’t buy from them. That’s business too.
But when it boils down to it, my primary point by posting this is that the president of the company broke a promise. If you want to do business with a company that doesn’t keep promises that’s perfectly fine with me, but I won’t.
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 13:10
Hopefully for QSOL, those customers who boosted sales back in 2000 can convince their parents to buy them the latest and greatest as a high school grad present.
nyahah!
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 14:44
The advertisement is NOT sexist, however your blog post IS SEXIST. Sexism is treating a different sex differently BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX. Treating women different because of whatever reasons you complain about IS SEXISM. Treating women JUST LIKE guys treat each other, with jokes, put downs and crude humor, is NOT SEXISM. It’s how most males are. Even the ones who say they aren’t–they are, they are just more socially inept and play it off differently.
Friday, Jul 13th, 2007 at 15:05
I really don’t think you can compare the sexual, personally invasive and sometimes violent threats that women in IT get to the “jokes, put downs and crude humor†that men in the industry face.
Saturday, Jul 14th, 2007 at 20:58
Well sure this isn’t the best piece of humor you can find.
My reaction when i saw the ad was “oh noooo” i wasn’t shocked, sex is natural-fun and a part of relationship between alduts.
But i couldn’t believe that a modern company could use such old mecanism of advertissement.
Guess what the wanted to shock with this, and they pass.
We now all know the name of their company.
It isn’t sexist, but yes it’s shocking
It won’t help us to get more women coming to computing and FLOSS but it’s not about reducing you as an object.
Just don’t pay attention next time, time will tell that those kind of ad won’t work in the future …
Sunday, Jul 15th, 2007 at 9:14
tenshu: Most of the time I do ignore it. As I said in the journal entry I pretty might resigned myself to accepting that tech magazines would be this way. The reason I posted about it was that I learned that the company had previously pulled this advertisement and promised not to run it again.
We simply disagree on the point of whether it’s sexist.
Sunday, Jul 15th, 2007 at 18:07
I was going to post a reply to this, and then noticed that KittyKat expressed my feelings better than I would.
Of course pleia2’s right on one thing: if a publisher promises one or more reader(s) not to publish a certain kind of ad or content again, he should keep that promise.
I just wish he didn’t promise you that. If I were a reader, I might just ask him to apologise for the apologie. Then again, maybe I don’t care that much.
Sunday, Jul 15th, 2007 at 19:58
I’m no prude and I enjoy sex and sexual humor.
But that ad was beyond sexist. It was totally inappropirate.
If that’s what they have to do to get a sale, then perhaps they should re-think thier product?