OCA preloader logo
Looking at adverts: 4 - The Open College of the Arts

To find out more details about the transfer to The Open University see A New Chapter for OCA.

Looking at adverts: 4 thumb

Looking at adverts: 4


This advert begins with a close up of a man’s face. He looks me straight in the eye (from what feels like uncomfortably close proximity) as he tells me that he belongs to an organization that ‘does things a little differently’. The next shot reveals his suit, tie and well-controlled hair. The business attire suggests to me that he is a banker. Now he is looking at himself in what appears to be a mirror. On closer inspection it is revealed to be a flat-screen monitor. It seems that he is not on the TV but is reflected in it. What does this mean? The reverse shot – in which the camera viewpoint jumps from a frontal view of his face to a position behind him, gives the impression that I am in the position of the monitor screen. It took me a while to come to any logical understanding of this scene. Is he recording the advert on a web-cam in a room that is empty and dark – a bit threatening? If so, why is the process of recording the advert being revealed to me in this way? Usually when adverts seem to reveal elements of their construction it is to suggest that they are exposing, and admitting, the artificial nature of advertising. By truthfully showing that they are recorded using actors and film crews, these adverts imply that any message they contain about the product is truthful too. In Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising Judith Williamson says that advertisers ‘use our belief in advertising’s dishonesty in order to give an aura of honesty to an ad’ (1978 P174). She suggests that adverts that incorporate criticism have higher credibility amongst viewers than those that do not acknowledge their inherently fictional nature.
But I don’t think that is what is happening here. I am not shown a camera crew or a lighting rig, and the male subject doesn’t talk to me about the tricks used in other adverts. After puzzling over this set up, an idea came to me that made some sense, a witness, or perhaps defendant, giving evidence via a video link. If this is the intended reading the male subject presents evidence and I inhabit the role of judge or jury.
The next scene throws my interpretation onto less stable ground. I am face to face with the male as he earnestly tells me about his job. But this head and shoulder shot suggests he is…naked?!
My courtroom drama has suddenly taken on a very different character. I don’t know what to do with this new information. Over the next sequence of clips we see the man, from behind, as he takes off his shirt while passionately eulogizing the virtues of the company he works for. His striptease takes on a symbolic meaning and I associate his naked flesh with naked truth. The actual reason for his state of undress is finally revealed at the end – his back is tattooed with the words ‘ethics and values’ as he asks ‘how seriously do we take this?’ and then answers ‘pretty seriously’.
E&V
The tattoo can mean lots of different things depending on the context it is shown in – it is polysemic. Tattoos have been used to signify rebellion, individuality, creativity, criminality and devotion, amongst other things. In this case it is supposed to signify commitment and suggest that the banks ethical values are a permanent feature – they are literally under the skin of the organization. But there is a hitch because it has come to public attention that the tattoo is a fake. It is impermanent – which makes the strategy of this advert pretty risky. The earnestness of the rest of the advert becomes questionable because of this piece of visual manipulation. Perhaps the banks ethics and values are only skin deep?
Gen
The middle section of the advert contains a series of black and white photographs that are held by the man. He literally brings the images to our attention, reinforcing the idea that he is presenting evidence for us to judge. But who are we judging?
I was confused by the rapid sequence of clips showing a gun and a tattoo gun that seem to force equivalence on them. Does that change the meaning of the tattoo suggesting it is an act of violence?
So many questions…


Posted by author: Dawn Woolley

20 thoughts on “Looking at adverts: 4

  • Underscoring all of this is the debacle that has overtaken the bank, its position as an ethical trader and occupy(ing) a different place to the traditional view of bankers. And that is the tenure of Paul Flowers. I find it difficult to see any public presence of the Co-op Bank without the subtext of Flowers invading the narrative. It was said about the bank that it’s ethical base was ‘died in the wool’, much like a tattoo is forever but that permanence was tested with Flowers and our faith therefore in the product. This advert is coloured by the pervasive message of distancing the man from the institution, introducing a square jawed, no nonsense, plain speaking iconic man of the people to it’s market. We are meant to believe in the seriousness of the man, his (the bank’s) intent on integrity as it intends to claw it’s way back up towards the moral high ground.
    You ask who we judge, I think it is Flowers this one time member of the Advertising Standards Authority.

  • I saw it last week I think. It’s one of the oddest adverts I’ve seen! If ethics and values are so important then surely the ‘tattoo’ should be on his front; written backwards, so he could see it in the mirror every time he looks at himself.Certainly seems like an effort at distancing – clean cut, young, good-looking man in contrast to Mr Flowers.

  • But remember the purpose of advertising on TV is not to make a documentary but to increase sales. In effect, any advert has as its main purpose making sure that its product is the first to come to mind when the purchase is to be made…hence all those annoying ads that you can’t forget because that are so bad…it takes great skill and creativity to produce rubbish like the Cillit Bang ads!

    • To suggest that all advertising is about selling product is as nuanced as Agfa ortho developed in stock Rodinal at 40oC; a marketing strategy of polar extremes. Advertisers will,carefully target their need, and whilst the long game may be product, in this case the sale of money, the co-op bank has more near distant objects in its sights. The recent diminution of share value with its concomitant risk of predatory institutional interest will be foremost on the minds of the board. This advert seems to target the recent issues of flaky management with a rugged, forceful, masculine (even) return to basics and build interest again in both the products and the investment managers.

    • I think this is partly true – it is trying to be memorable to put its brand back in the public mind – but due to all the issues they have had lately I think they are already there but for the wrong reasons! I think this is an image cleaning exercise as much as a selling tool.

  • I think Peter is right in that this is clearly intended to stand out and attract attention and be memorable. Up to a point, I’m not sure it matters what an advert does as long as it gets the brand in people’s minds. However, I do wonder who the Coop sees as potential customers.
    I know that advertising for major corporates is generally very closely modelled to what they think their ideal customer group might like – or more importantly, not be offended by. This is a very macho urban male-oriented piece, and I wondered if they were moving to target young urban professionals.
    But I can’t quite match that advert with their front page and the family market they seem to be going for.
    http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/
    Interesting I noticed when searching on other banks that Coop and Lloyds Bank don’t have an option on Google for images – I assume that is deliberate but am not sure what it might mean.

  • The clothed/unclothed male aspects of it seem to have some meaning to me allied with the (TV) monitor at the start. I might put it together and see it as the business man (suited banker type) taking his clothes off so we can see what’s underneath, putting himself (and the coop) into a position of some vulnerability (unclothed) while we watch on the TV screen.
    So the bare skin might refer to a stripping away of the superficial until we get to the ‘honest’ bare skin, which, as it turns out has ethical tattoos, which have already been discussed.

    • At Coop the bankers are all normal (ethical) men underneath? I think the strip sequence does try to tell us that he is just like us underneath – the human face of bankers after years of vilification!

  • This advert made me quite angry even before I read Dawn’s blog entry which made me think more deeply.
    Presumably they are trying to attract new customers but it is hard to see how the imagery or the words used here would do that. The Co-op Bank has always made it’s ethical stance a differentiating factor for its brand and that aspect certainly appealed to me in the past – and yet they have been party to serious unethical behaviour within their own organisation. Making a big issue of ethics again seems to flagrantly deny or at least ignore recent events.
    This advert could almost be seen as glamourising what they claim not to support by using slick, fast-paced, masculine imagery and the intense focused stare. The man looks more like a soldier than any bank clerk or manager that I have seen.
    It would have been interesting if they said which “bad organisations” they had denied £1b of funding to and on what basis and how many good causes they had supported and why. That would have been a start towards becoming transparent.
    What Ethics? What Values?

  • Whatever he says, the main thing the actor is doing is stripping. Then we see his buff bod getting a tattoo. Along the way we’ve had some images that grab attention: skulls, bullets thrusting forward, ink in pretty clouds. The sequencing is he takes off his clothes and then we see something that looks like an orgasm using a bullet and ink. Seems like the oldest formula in the book with hipster details: sell with sex.
    The chatter about ethical? They are using the sexuality of men to sell to women the same way women’s bodies are used to sell motorcycles and luxury boats. In the latter they are leaning over the big engines; in this he is taking off his clothes and getting a tattoo while talking about being a good guy.

    • Yes – I think you are right there too! I hadn’t thought about the bullet and ink as an orgasm but I certainly do now – ethics are sexy and so is the co-op! I am glad you are discussing the intended audience. The tattoo, and styling of the video in general, do seem to suggest a younger, urban audience. I wonder if this is the demographic that predominantly closed their accounts, or is it assumed that they will be more forgiving about the activities of Paul flowers?

  • I’ve watched and re-watched this advert because I was a Co-Op bank customer who closed their account, having originally been happy there because of their ethical policies. It took me a long time to leave, because where else do you go? So I watched this wondering how much I was the target audience. I was part of a big number who walked away after years of loyalty. But it’ll take more than this to win my respect again.

  • I fall into the same category as Jennifer, having once been a Co-Op Bank customer. I too feel unlikely to return, because once you see corruption and unethical practice at the top structure of an organisation how trust worthy are all the smaller details?
    The head of a company is supposed to direct and give values to the rest of the company!
    I don’t think this advert builds trust, it feels staged and theatrical. The man looks like he got a spray tan and contact lenses to look his best for a performance. The flashing of images of war or death seem gimmicky not an earnest plea for people to return to the bank to help correct unethical banking practices.

  • I thought this advert was very cynically designed to play on peoples perception of bankers. Every bank worth mentioning has strict reputation risk policies which are grilled into staff over and over: do not have any dealings with business or beneficiaries associated with high risk business, such as weapon manufacture, gambling and so on. In addition to that financing terrorism or aiding money laundering is a criminal offence, as is helping tax evasion. Not only Co-Op should refuse funding (of just 1bn apparently), they should alert authorities about any knowing of any illegal and unlawful activities, even if this is just suspected. If they do not, the heads of the company and the people who withhold such information would be in prison. So, the advert tells us, that Co-Op employees are not criminals, well, most of the time. Nice to know, but how is it supposed to make me feel better about the company? It is just what is expected. Is it not?

    • Really? I did not know that! We could write an entirely different discussion about the use of the male body to sell the bank’s ethics based on that information alone! However, the man in the advert does make a point of telling us he works for a company that is different, suggesting he is a banker (which is also signified by his suit)…I guess his employment could be of a ‘hospitality’ nature. And this does pose questions about the actor’s body in the employ of the bank. As ‘littlewoodstudios’ pointed out – this man’s flesh is for sale and manipulation (in the form of a tattoo)…

  • One thing no ones mentioned so far is the man’s accent, try listening without watching the ad, which to me has possibly a European feel about it and I wondered what the thinking was behind it. Its certainly different from a lot of voices used.
    Like other commentators I relate this back to the scandals involving the bank and view the ad as trying to re-establish itself as the ethical choice. On a separate note as a result of the Tony Bair issue I am more aware of the Save the Children ads currently showing and wonder whether these are being run like the co-op one to remind viewers of its role?

  • I have heard several times “looking yourself in the mirror” both as an expression of being in peace with what you have done as well as of profound reflection or a moment of truth. To see yourself naked is also a strong metaphor for honesty or for being unable to hide anything.
    The man that sees himself in the mirror is different than the naked man talking to us. I think that there is the idea of this first man seeing in the mirror a “what if…” situation. What would you see every morning in the mirror if you would have lent money to those people?. At the end he exhales in relief because he didn’t.
    Maybe we can also think that he acted ethically because “The Organisation” has the highest ethical standards and will ensure all his employees will behave in accordance. Are the hand and the shadow a metaphor for the organisation? Is the organisation the one that tattooed those values into their employees skin? Is there a reference to suicide or what it is implied is the opposite and his relief is the relief of someone that has passed the “test”/ survived?
    Maybe “the organisation” in this ad is depicted as an entity that will ensure ethical practices in all its employees or it will punish the responsible. This approach would seem appropriate for a bank that has failed in preventing irresponsibility and therefore it can only promise punishment and a general cleaning. Is it there the idea of reviewing all the employees to hold them accountable? The ones that passes will receive a mark of approval, a seal or stamp. The mirror/ monitor can represent that every employee will be screened and they will have two alternatives selves or destinies. Is he striping for the audience or for the organisation that is screening him and he is showing he has nothing to hide? Are the images in the monitor the implied interrogator’s questions?
    So, for me there are two sequences together depicting the same employee. The black background is the employee prior to the cleaning. The past. The white background is the present, where only the ethical employees were kept. And one of this ethical employees, who has gone through a screening process with determination because he had nothing to hide (that is the way he strips), and had been found clean (the tattoo is a warranty), is telling us they have went out from their darkest moment in history. And their ethos is: the means are more important to us, we will never lend money for corrupted causes because above all is our ethic. We got rid of anyone unethical. Now we are clean again. The final image is the dark ink receding, leaving the company clean and white.
    Does it sounds like a possible interpretation?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

> Next Post Unraveled Visions

< Previous Post Jodie Bartlett

Back to blog listings