Buy Some

Saw this ad in the latest Time magazine, and it just caught my attention. It's not that I need a new copier or two or 32 dozen for my growing national defense concern. It's not that I have any interest whatsoever in Kyocera products, never having owned or bought one. The appearance of the ad caught my eye, which, after all, is the exact purpose of the ad in the first place, right?

The very first thing that I asked myself: is this a true photograph of a real woman, or is this some grotesque digital composite? I have no formal training, no way to examine the picture to make the determination, no way of knowing the answer to my musings, but something tells me she's not real. There's just something there, a digital gaydar, if you will, that is giving me the creeps about the questionable humanity of this alleged female corporate shill.

But no matter. Once the ad caught my attention, fulfilling almost all of its purpose, I had to study it. It's fascinating, truly.

Okay, they're selling a computer printer here. It has stuff, and it does stuff, prints stuff, and it will serve you in your business as you do your capitalist thing. Yeah, I got it, and blah blah blah. But why is the printer, the focus of the advertisement after all, taking up what appears to me to be less than 20% of the total photo space of the advertisement? I'd think you'd want to push your product to the front (which it barely is doing), to make it big and bold, so prospective customers could get a good look at it. But what is pushed to the front, and what we're really looking at is the skirt.

This woman is easily taking up 25% of the available space in the photo. And she is in the closest of foreground, with the product for sale just barely in front of her. Why is that? Why is the chick bigger than and upstaging the product for sale? Which one exactly is for sale?

As Frank Zappa said as he urged his audience members to get down with their bad selves during the "Be Bop Tango" on the Roxy & Elsewhere album, let's examine this phenomenon.

So, the woman is there to get our attention. An attractive lady always gets attention. Primarily it's male attention, sure, and after all, I think industry and government figures would bear out that most purchasing managers would be of the male persuasion. So you've got that going for you, Kyocera. And, as I've seen over and over again, another woman will look at an attractive woman almost as quickly as a man will. What goes on in the viewing female's mind is a closely guarded secret, but I think it basically has to do with competition.

The female inner monologue may go a little something like this: Who is this competition? Is she prettier? Is she more attractive to the men? Is she taller, thinner? Can I call her 'fat?' Are her breasts bigger, higher, firmer, more attractive than my own? How do her hips compare to mine? Has she got varicose veins? Breast augmentation? Face lift or other surgery? Do I need some surgery? Are they paying more attention to her or me? What has she got that I don't have, and how can I learn from her? Is she a threat? Or is she just trash? She's probably just a worthless slut, all dolled up like that, just to get the men to pay attention to her. She's so insecure, so needy. She probably lives alone with her cats, just where she needs to be, alone and anorexic, the hollow, worthless whore.

But I digress.

But to my mind she's clearly not being portrayed as a shameless tart, not in that outfit, not in that setting, althrough the office setting is well behind her and she's a part of it only by implication.

Okay, the woman has gotten our attention. First of all, she's attractive. Yeah, I guess, but to be honest she doesn't really do it for me. Again, she doesn't look real. More than anything that caught my attenion was that mouth. She's just a hair away from Jack Nicholson's Joker in Batman with the size of that mouth. What does a gigantic mouth say about a woman? Does it imply sexual prowess or capability? Hell, I don't know that one, but I know how well the limited yet significantly large-mouthed Julia Roberts did in Pretty Woman.

The teeth are a perfect white, just short of that overdone, scary blue-white. The makeup is conservative, just right. Here eyes are nice, not remarkable. And her hair is also conservative, again not remarkable.

The jewelry is restrained, not overdone or trashy. Her earrings match her necklace, which I somehow note is not a pearl necklace. Would a pearl necklace connote too much, or be too conservative, too June Cleaver? Too maternal? Se can't have her appearing tied-down or otherwise permanently attached, after all (see the ring bit, immediately below). She's wearing a nice wristwatch, which tells us she's a professional, concerned with time, staying on time, being punctual, etc. And of course, prominently displayed is that left hand, with no ring on that ring finger. So she's available, boys, all you have to do is go after it. The fingernails are plain, with no paint at all, cut modestly. Not even a French manicure. Can I imply from this that she's modest and conservative, not out to play herself up, that she's not trashy? Who knows.

And the body. Is it me, or is she grotesquely thin? I mean, look at the waist. She's probably sporting a 22" waist, 24" at the absolute most. Look at those rail-thin arms in that blouse. I mean, this woman is probably clincally underweight. Of course, this is the ideal for most women, and for some ridiculous reason most of the rest of society has signed up for this crap. I guess for a model, she's the prime specimen, but she looks to me like she most of all needs a sandwich, or a couple of candy bars. She's just way too thin, grotesquely thin.

And the clothing. Standing out most of all is the blouse. Conservative in cut, style, and color. The shiny fabric is an attention-getter, but also may speak to silk or satin, implying a bit of sophistication, a bit of personal indulgence in liking the sensation. It also implies the possibility of a romantic, and dare I say, even sexy/sexual being underneath that restrained professional facade. But the fit of the blouse is interesting. It's just tight enough, just tight enough. The buttons at the top and the next one down pull just a little, showing that clear tension in the fabric across the top of her chest, just a little bit, but there if you're paying attention. This implies something trying to come out, but can it really be those tiny breasts? I'd think advertising folk would have found a grotesquely thin model who'd had her breasts done, at least to a B cup. This shill is sporting an A at the very most. Again, does that make her more maternal, more the marrying kind, the kind of professional girl you can take home to Rhode Island to the parents and show off to the elderly relatives? Yeah, probably. But your buddies from school would be asking you when you'd pop for the breast augmentation.

And finally, the leading advertisement text, the headline: "Brilliant color, most cost-effective, and very well connected." The question leaps from the page--are we talking about that tiny, underplayed computer printer way down there on the page, or are we talking about the brunette immediately to the right? Could go either way.

I'd have to argue that her color display here is not "brilliant." Yeah, we've talked on the blouse, and it's okay. But that apparently gray tweed skirt certainly doesn't qualify as brilliant. The teeth might fit in there, but that's about it.

And is this young lady truly cost-effective? Kind of hard to tell from what we're presented with here, but then again, the overall conservativeness of her outfit and display seem to indicate she's sensible and not prone to gold-digging. That would make her more cost-effective than, say, your best lap-dancing partner Zephyr down at "Spewter: The Gentleman's Oasis."

And finally, is she very well-connected? No way to tell here, but isn't that the ideal for any guy out for a mate, one who has a senator for a dad, is related to the chairman of the SEC, or was once an executive secretary to Bill Gates? If she's well connected, that just makes all kinds of things easier. She'll pull her weight with you, or so it seems.

So in conclusion, I look back and see an extended rant on what is essentially a meaningless computer printer advertisement. Or maybe a meaningless rant on a meaningless ad. Hey, I enjoyed it, so take it any way you'd like.