Okay to look? What?
24 December 2007
Call me old fashioned, but isn’t adultery supposed to be a Bad Thing? Let’s assume that it is for the sake of argument that it is (and if you disagree, I’d be interested in knowing why). With that modest standard agreed upon, take a look at this Match.com ad I saw on some (non-adultery-advocating) website. (Red oval is mine, not part of the ad.)
Promoting marital infidelity certainly isn’t a hook I’d choose to promote my business. But I’m not the marketing director at Match.com, who apparently did choose adultery as the basis of one of their campaigns. I’ve searched for the phrase “It’s okay to look” but all I found were people’s blogs talking about their dates (and one YouTube video of a cat). It seems I’m the only one who finds this odd.
Sure, I know that Match.com would tell you that it’s geared toward single people who are uncomfortable with the idea of online dating because to some it carries with it a stigma that you can’t get a “real” date. (I don’t think that’s the case at all, personally. We shop, buy, pay bills, read news, and in some cases even vote online; why not meet people? Beats shouting at someone over loud music at a club, right?) Telling these people that it’s okay to look gets them on the site with the mindset they’re just seeing what’s there. Next thing they know they’re signed up and participating–the ad did its job.
But that’s why the ad is insidious: its got that double meaning. Suppose you’re in a committed relationship, or even married, but unhappy. Rather than dealing with the root causes of that unhappiness, you decide it’s “okay to look” at singles on Match.com. I’m the first person to advocate for personal responsibility and that an ad cannot make you do anything you wouldn’t want to do anyway, but still. When I read that I see the marketers sitting around a conference table espousing the extra benefit of the phrase appealing to dissatisfied married people.
Am I reading too much into this? Probably. What do you think?
I've seen that ad all over the place, and I
bradleyjpaul | 4 January 2008 | 10:01 amI’ve seen that ad all over the place, and I think it’s general enough to not specifically imply adultry. In my own reading, I think the ad is trying to reach out to people still feel online dating carries a stigma with it.
Coincidentally, I just realized stigma must be derived from stigmata. That’s pretty cool.
And my thoughts on adultry? I think in its strictest and most traditional definition, it’s wrong. But, I also think that there are a bunch of different ways to define a relationship, and one person’s adultry may be another’s status quo. It’s all up to the people involved and open communication.