Print Ad Commentary: Kenneth Cole Ads
Sarah McMurray

This set of Kenneth Cole ads compares a womanÕs political and social rights to her freedom to select and wear fashionable clothing. The right to physical safety, the right to abort a child/fetus, and the right to vote are parodied in the three ads. Each of these ads feature relatively simple backdrops that compel the consumer to focus primarily on the boldface quote which is printed on each photo, but also on the merchandise or the model (whose feet are shown in two of the ads). Ultimately, the quotes and images combined portray womenÕsÕ rights as of equal importance to her fashion accessories. Such a comparison re-instills stereotypical images of the self-centered woman who knows or cares little about public political and social life, above and beyond presenting herself well. Below are three short commentaries on the individual ads.

1. ÒWhere would we be without our rights?
   The position of the modelÕs legs indicates that she is lying relaxed, without any muscle tension. She is disembodied and obviously laying on a carpeted floor. Strikingly, she is only wearing one shoe. These four visual clues lead the observer to the conclusion that the model is deceased. Further, the fact that she is missing one shoe indicates not only that she is dead, but that she died a violent death. Since she is a woman and is indoors, and there are no obvious wounds or pools of blood, it seems that she is most likely the victim of domestic violence and was strangled/beaten to death.

   Her purse is lying at a haphazard angle next to her left leg. The purse and shoe match, both in snakeskin. Snakeskin generally indicates exoticism, but the model appears to be Caucasian. This could be an example of her ÒrightÓ to choose whatever style of footw ear/bag she wished.

   The sparseness of the backdrop draws your eye to the modelÕs legs and the quote written above. The quoteÕs relationship to the image is not entirely clear. To interpret the image, the observer must decide whether the image is or is not an example of a woman with rights. If the modelÕs rights are being denied, then the image seems to answer the quote, commenting that women would be dead without their rights. However, if this woman is exercising her rights, ÒrightsÓ become specifically the right to fashion rather than the right to life. In such a case, this image is a favorable example of a woman killed while practicing her right to fashionable accessories. Framed by the other ads, it seems more likely that this image is a celebration of a womanÕs right to wear fashionable accessories than a commentary on the plight of the underrepresented, abused woman.

2. ÒIt is a womanÕs right to choose. After all, sheÕs the one carrying it.Ó
   The phrases Òright to chooseÓ and Òcarrying itÓ are both terms regularly applied to abortion debates. These phrases are superimposed over an image of two slightly different, but extremely similar, black leather bags resting on a couch. Again, the backdrop is very simple and oneÕs eye is drawn to the quote and the bags. Here a parallel is drawn between a baby, or fetus, and a handbag since a womanÕs right to choose whether to carry a child to term or abort is compared with her right to choose a purse or a sack style carry-all.

3. ÒWe have the right to vote for whatever we see fit.Ó
   It is obvious from the blue curtain and the quote that the model in this ad is voting. However, the candidate she supports and her activism in national politics is de-emphasized in favor of the shoes and handbag she chose for her outing. Her right to elect a candidate she feels comfortable with is compared to her ability to find accessories that compliment her style and ÒfitÓ. Again, the model is disembodied. This strips her of any individuality and gives the impression that her main distinguishing features are her shoes and handbag.

These ads portray an undistinguished, and thus average, woman as entirely uninterested in her political and social rights. Her footwear and purse choice is more important to her than her life, body, or government. Since each of these ads uses a female model and advertises womenÕs products, they reinforce gender stereotypes that specifically women are unconcerned with or incompetent in the public sphere. Further, they demean womenÕs rights as equally important to fashionable clothing. These ads establish fashion as equal to ignorance, disabling the woman who enjoys fashion to be respected in public, academic circles. Further, the ads make ignorance of anything but attractive shoes seem favorable and the ÒrightÓ way to be.