If the Shoe Commercial Doesn’t Fit, Don’t Buy It: Reebok Ads High on Objectification, Low on Value
by Meg Young
Our Bodies Ourselves intern
Reebok recently launched a new ad campaign for its women’s “Easy Tone” sneakers that is definitely not focused on feet. The shoe’s selling point is that the sole is supposedly constructed in such a way that it works the wearer’s hamstrings, calves and glutes as she walks, resulting in “better legs and a better butt with every step.”
From watching Reebok’s ads, however, one would think that the company is promoting lingerie, not a new fitness sneaker.
One of the ads begins with a close-up of a woman’s breasts in a bra, then pans to her panty-clad backside before briefly flashing a picture of the sneakers. In another ad, the bra is long gone as a faceless woman stretches her body — almost naked except for underwear and sneakers — over a bed. The only thing missing is porno-groove music. Oh wait, it’s there, too.
In the only ad depicting a woman wearing clothes (short shorts and an exercise tank top), she is unable to get the cameraman to focus on her face (instead of her behind) as she presents the virtues of “Easy Tone” sneakers.
YouTube has tagged the videos as “inappropriate for some users” and requires viewers to state that they are 18 before watching.
The late-night style ads aren’t the only bizarre thing about this sneaker campaign. Jami Bernard at WalletPop points to this warning on the Reebok website : “Due to the instability of the balance pods, activities with unplanned side-to-side movement and/or any lateral-movement -sports such as tennis or basketball-should be avoided.”
A fitness sneaker that you can’t play sports in? Huh?
Reebok’s website proclaims that upon wearing the sneakers, “88% of men will be speechless. 78% of women will be jealous.”
I’m 100 percent sure I can find a better way to spend $110.
Meg Young recently graduated from high school in Middlebury, Vt., and will enroll at Tufts University in the fall of 2010 after taking a gap year.
Subscribe to this blog's feed
November 16, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Well……
The ads are offensive, no question about that. But the writer needs to either stop there, or remember a few basic facts about fitness, clothing and footwear.
MOST shoes don’t have a lot of lateral stability, because most activities don’t require it. That’s why you never, ever wear running shoes to aerobics class. (You knew that, right?) Or to play tennis, basketball, soccer, football, field hockey, or any other cutting sport.
And MOST fitness activities are done in a minimal amount of clothing. The reason Liliya Shobukhova wore nothing but briefs, a singlet (that’s what it’s called), an ear-band and arm warmers to win the Chicago Marathon in 34° weather was not to show off her body, fabulous as it is. It’s because that’s what’s functional.
November 17, 2009 at 7:24 am
I’m not getting Dana’s minimal-clothing point. Except for the one the writer mentions, the women in the ads aren’t dressed for sports.
In the original Olympics men performed naked. But somehow that never figures in men’s sneaker commercials.
November 17, 2009 at 12:26 pm
There’s no reason to try to rationalize away the chauvinism in the ads — Reebok doesn’t want you to. From the very text of the website that Meg quotes — “88% of men will be speechless. 78% of women will be jealous” — Reebok makes it clear these shoes are about image and not substance — specifically crafting a woman’s body for men’s eyes. And the main competition they are good for is to continue to foment the battle among women themselves over who better achieves the patriarchal ideal.
I’m not going to say they are a useless shoe. They might be scientifically the greatest shoe ever made. But marketing is not about the product. It’s about the values that we should be associating with the product. And those values are pretty clear.
November 17, 2009 at 2:01 pm
I just sent letters to five of the top executives at Reebok stating how offensive I thought these ads were. Might be funny to watch in a bar, but not at home when you are trying to watch TV with your kids. At least Victoria’s Secret is actually trying to sell underwear with their ads. Reebok just crossed a line for me.
November 18, 2009 at 12:46 am
I’m going to do the same Amy.
November 19, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Thanks for all of your feedback!
Dana – that’s a great point about lack of lateral support in most running shoes, and something I was not very aware of while writing article. Thank you.
November 23, 2009 at 1:23 am
I hate these new reebok commericals. I feel uncomforable watching these with my family. I am glad my kids are not old enough to google over a woman. There is a line and it was crossed. There are a lot better ways to sell shoes with out using breast and butt. I love Reebok classic, but will discontinue my tradition of replacing them every year. i am disappointed with reebok.
November 23, 2009 at 1:33 pm
They should’ve at least hired a model with a better butt to drive the point home.
November 23, 2009 at 7:45 pm
Please WOMEN — contact Reebok to let them know of your outrage at this OVERTLY sexualized advertising.
November 24, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I completely agree with you. This ad left me scratching my head. Is Reebok looking to arouse men, or sell shoes to women. Why not focus on the performance of the shoe instead of naked women.
November 28, 2009 at 8:19 pm
It is so gross. The ads speak volumes about the corporate culture at Reebok. When they have every opportunity to lift women up and inspire them to break past the old stereotypes, they instead choose to pander to the most base male inclinations, and reinforce body image issues in a whole new generation. I’ll never buy another product from them. The should be ashamed.
November 30, 2009 at 4:08 pm
I love the commericals and the shoes. They want men to buy them for women, as if we cannot afford to buy them for ourselves??? They are the must have gift of the year; and a gift women want and men can buy without too much effort or thought:)
The Today show did a test of the shoes – and they loved them too.
The commercials are to show what “you can have”….like every other product out there – they show the absolute best possible scenerio. Not everyone will end up with a butt like the models, but hey….one can have a vision of what they would like to look like while they walk in the shoes.
I say brilliant ad campaign Reebok – keep up the good work. Many trainers tell you to have an image of what you want to look like or a dress you want to look good in to keep you motivated…..well they nailed it in a commercial!
December 4, 2009 at 1:20 pm
I like this commercial she is so HOT.
December 6, 2009 at 3:09 pm
Kelly, I don’t condone violence but If my boyfriend bought me sneakers to improve my body as a gift I’d knock him into 2010. lol The scantily dressed women do not offend me. The “women will be jealous” part does. I don’t gain my self-esteem that way!!!
December 8, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Oh and I have news for Reebok. Those so called “exercise” shoes have been around for awhile and they do NOT work. It’s all a scam so please don’t waste your money. How sad that Reebok is so desperate they have to stoop to such cheesy sleezy ads that are appearing during a time when small children are watching. I wrote to my local television stations and complained and I suggest anyone else who finds these ads offensive should do the same. As always the best way to complain is with you wallet.
December 27, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I am not so offended by the commercials, I happen to like the Axe commercials will scantily dressed good looking men, but I am unsure about promoting an untested shoe to change your body mechanics while walking. How about injuries? Lateral movements, anybody that has walked any distance has had to side step something. Ankle stability? effect on heavier people? repetitive injuries to back, hips and knees? That is what I am worried about. We want women to exercise to be healthier not just look good.
January 2, 2010 at 8:47 pm
The shoes are not meant to be worn while working out or doing any other fitness endeavors. The instability they provide forces the body to work more to stand and walk thus you get a “workout” doing your every day walking around.
They are the same as the MBT’s that have been around for years and cost 3′x as much
They do “work” in you have to use your stabilizing muscles more but they are not going to change your body SO dramatically
Some people do swear by the MBT’s that they have less back pain and better posture etc etc
I will hand this to Reebok the shoes are not near as ugly as the MBT’s are
man that is one ugly shoe
January 12, 2010 at 10:33 pm
Wow, where have I been- I don’t think i’ve seen the commercials on tv. i did see the print ads and got a pair about a month ago- I hate to say it-but i love them. i have a pair of mbt shoes- very clunky. these sneakers are so comfortable I wear them everyday and I wear them on the treadmill- no problems. Wouldn’t think of wearing them to aerobics class- I’m too smart for that. Also, they are good to wear when doing balance excercises-kind of like being on a stability board or bosu ball.So, let’s not ” throw the baby out with the bath water.” They look great-feel great and maybe they have some benefit.Not bad for a sneaker.