I'm Good. You're Good. We're all Good

Okay, so comedic violence is nothing new. Think about the merging of Greek tragedy and Greek comedy. In contemporary society, there is no shortage of it. Although the late communication scholar George Gerbner spent much of his life researching media violence by counting the number of violent acts in television programs, as early as the 1970s he gave into the demand of CBS to eliminate the category of comedic violence from his studies. The network's position was that to include acts of comedic violence with, well, regular violence would drive the number of violent acts exorbitantly high.

Now for the pause that refreshes…an assessment of this year's Super Bowl commercials. In particular, I’m interested in the commercial for Pepsi Max. (I know I take this stuff way too seriously, but some one has to. And, I know my analysis of commercials sucks all the fun out of watching them, but so be it - that's my role in life.) So, what's up with the Pepsi Max spot, titled "I'm Good," that joins the long list of advertisements -- Super Bowl and otherwise -- that attack masculinity?



As you can see for yourself, the spot goes through a series of vignettes: the first one features a guy being hit in the back with a length of wood that is spit out of a planner, in reaction to which he declares "I'm good," meaning he's okay, even though a two-by-four just hit him in the lower back at twenty mph. This is followed by a golfer who in the process of teeing off swings and hits his golfing buddy both with the back and forward stroke of his driver. Then a bowler drops a ball on the head of his bowling buddy, and a passenger stands up through the sunroof of a limousine, declaring "I'm the man..." while being struck by the low abutment of a parking garage the limo is entering. After each of these sequences the object of the "comedic violence" declares to his buds, "I'm good." The last scene depicts several guys doing electric work on a house. One fellow sticks his hand into an outdoor light socket as another switches on the electricity. The guy with his hand in the socket goes flying through the air for about 30 feet until he hits a trailer parked on the property, and upon landing also declares, "I'm good." The voice over at this point boldly states: "Men can take anything, except the taste of diet cola...until now." Of course Pepsi Max is offered as a solution to this problem. The announcer then says that Pepsi Max is the first diet cola for men. Isn't that nice? A diet cola just for men; men who can take anything, that is, except the taste of diet cola. All in good fun, until you focus on the comedic violence.

Researchers have found that social conditions, like the economic recession we are presently experiencing, encourage people to gravitate toward more violent comedy. Why? According to one study:

“because violence makes comedy harder and angrier, although also satisfying viewers’ authoritarian desire to see those in power discipline transgressors.”

This means people enjoy seeing good guys punish bad guys. In the ad for Pepsi, the guys aren’t necessary good or bad, they’re, well, just guys. So where is the pleasure? The ad, in my opinion, is merely an attack on middle-class values, and part of a continuing attack on masculinity that started in the mid-1990s. I’ve been tracking this trend for several years now, having studied commercials in which guys are caught in public with their pants down, guys depicted as werewolves, and guys depicted as cavemen. In my opinion, the sum total of these advertisements suggests advertisers seek to discipline this target audience in a way that nudges them in the direction of the brand, product or service. I don’t think this trend is connected only to our current economic problems, although I think it is rooted in the economic problems men experienced in the early nineties when many lost their jobs and never were able to regain their status as “breadwinners.” So, rather than blaming this current trend on what I hope will be a relatively short-lived economic downturn, I suggest it is part of a longer term effort by advertisers to contain and control masculinity.