More on Discovery Channel, NOT FOR GIRLS!

[tencrush]

flohkatie found a picture for me, and as people have started to blog about this campaign, they've started to appear online. For the uninitiated, here it is:



Discovery Channel: Niet Bestemd voor Vrouwenogen. Not meant for women's eyes.
Tagline: Discovery Channel biedt: televisie die mannen willen zien: spannend, slim, interessant, avontuurlijk, en vooral echt. Kijk zelf maar. Discovery Channel offers: television men want to see: exciting, smart, interesting, adventurous, and above all, real. See for yourself.

A quick note on translation, BESTEMD, meant, intended, is a word I was tempted to translate as suitable, even though that's not what it means, it, especially in conjunction with the picture, does carry that connotation. The copywriter in me wonders if they considered GESCHIKT, suitable, and I reckon they probably did. If I'd been in charge, I'd have dropped the whole word and made it "Niet voor vrouwenogen", not for women's eyes. That gets rid of the whole nasty connotation issue. But doesn't make the fail any better. The tagline about what sort of television Discovery offers may not be something that's promoted in the English speaking market, but I can unequivocally tell you that that whole line was conceived and written in English and translated into Dutch. It scans and reads as English copy, not Dutch. I'm actually suprised the whole campaign wasn't in English, the Dutch have no problem with that, and the channel carries English programmes. I'm thinking it the whole campaign may originally have been conceived in the English language and translated at the last minute. Though the "women's eyes" thing isn't great in English, and sounds much better in Dutch. I digress.

Now, I have no problem with a MAN'S CHANNEL, don't get me wrong. As taversham pointed out in my previous post on the subject, there's a certain win-win situation with branding things for MEN ONLY (see also Top Gear), because manly men like the ego-stroke of being catered to in that manner, while women can claim feminist cred for watching it anyway (Whereas a women's only channel, with fashion and babies and reruns of Ally McBeal! is seen by women as both patronising and sexist, and wouldn't be watched by men if you paid them. Being a man and manly is still the best thing to be in the marketing world.) I do, however, have a problem with the Discovery Channel being rebranded as a man's channel, if only because it's a well-known enough brand, with what I perceived to be a perfectly satisfactory established geeky/sciency/outdoorsy market. Isn't that enough? Isn't it enough to be into those things without branding those things as only being of interest to one particular sex? So yeah, I'm offended by this campaign. I don't like it.

Here's another guy, just for freak value:


Anyway, the plot thickens now with the following quote from Alco de Jong, VP of Channels, Discovery Networks Benelux (FYI, Americans, that's BElgiumNEtherlandsLUXemburg):

"Overigens weten vrouwen ons ook te vinden. Dat kan ook niet anders, met een cast bestaande uit Bear Grylls en Mike Rowe en de enige echte mannen op televisie: de crew van Deadliest Catch."
"Women know where to find us, too. How could they not, with a cast like Bear Grylls, Mike Rowe, and the only real men on television: the crew from Deadliest Catch."

WHAT? See, now this is a true example of foot-in-mouth-ism from Discovery Benelux. Not only does their campaign claim their programming is only of interest to men, but now they add another level of fail by claiming that if women do watch it, they're obviously only watching because they like seeing handsome, rugged, manly men being rugged and manly. Obviously there's no way women would be into programming that is exciting, smart, interesting, adventurous and real, women are into WATCHING MEN being exciting, smart, interesting, adventurous and real.

FAIL, DISCOVERY CHANNEL. SO MUCH FUCKING FAIL. TIME TO SHUT YOUR MOUTH NOW.

Comments

[jamesie-boy.livejournal.com]

i said 'fuck you' on the other post so i don't know if i could add much more on top off that. it all still reeks of bullshit that kinda pisses me off.

[tencrush]

I am RIGHTEOUSLY ANGRY about it. It's crapola.

[jamesie-boy.livejournal.com]

if i lived over there i'd probably complain.

[tencrush]

I'm working up to complaining about it, but I need to translate my complaints into Dutch, so it's taking me a while. It's my own fault for initially commenting upon it in English, now I have to make my brain do a u-turn and find the right words.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

This campaign fails so hard. Ugh. I had a quick look at the Discovery website for the UK, and it does seem to have been taken over by the whole BIG MACHINES and BLOWING SHIT UP thing, with a lot less general science and nature than I was expecting, but I didn't see any explicit manly men marketing.

Now, I have no problem with a MAN'S CHANNEL, don't get me wrong

In addition to the re-branding issue, it's the GIRL COOTIE FREE! aspect of these ads that makes me throw up in my mouth a bit. It's one thing for advertisers to say HEY GUISE, THIS IS AWESOME AND MANLY, but this campaign seems to be trying to lure in male viewers purely on the basis of being anti-women.

[tencrush]

Like I said, I've been out of the loop with Discovery for a year or two, cablewise, and this is really kind of shocking to me. It fails on all counts.

Basically, I was really excited to have it back because my boy's really into science and stuff, but there's precious little science on the channel. And what there is, is doing that SCIENCE=MANLY=EXPLOSIONS thing that I don't really want to instill in him. I still blame Richard Hammond.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

My daugther adores Richard Hammond and Top Gear. I do sometimes wonder where I went wrong. ;D Although, at least on Blast Lab the kid teams always featured girls equally with boys, as well as having some female 'characters' on, sparing us the VAG FREE ZONE vibe.

[tencrush]

My son loves Blast Lab, too, but I can't help but think that ever since Jeremy Clarkson started putting lightbulbs in microwaves, the Richard Hammonds and Discovery Channels of this world have started turning all science programming into being all about explosions and effects and, in the more adult oriented shows, about manly MEN blowing things up. My kid LOVES explosions and effects, sure, and I don't think there's anything wrong with turning kids onto science with impressive gimmicks, but there's a boys' club aspect to it that bothers me. I have a daughter, too, and I feel like when she's older, she won't actually be part of the target audience for science shows. That sucks.

[shaggydogstail.livejournal.com]

Yeah, there is very little in the way of science TV that isn't about blowing stuff up - even nature programmes are becoming overrun with 'deadliest predator' type stuff. The shows may not be so bad individually, but the lack of variety is depressing.

The boys' club thing is the worst, though. My girl's TEN and she already struggles with a whole lot of fucked-up gender shit, and it's fucking depressing that it's only going to get worse as she gets older.

[flohkatie.livejournal.com]

Maybe you can enlighten me. I only have a vague idea what Discovery Channel is or was about (similar to National Geographic, I assume). Does Discovery Channel still air their "traditional" programs and those manly men stuff as addition or is it now manly men stuff only? The campaign seems to indicate the latter. I reckon they only want to use a well-known brand to make something completely different. From aimed at all audiences to fun stuff for men where women are only invited to watch when they keep their mouths shut.

What I don't get is why they felt the need to drag women into it at all. If men (or women) want to watch that kind of stuff I really don't care other than thinking that it's a pity that another intelligent program drew the short straw for more of the same, again. It's the provocative attitude towards women I find quite annoying.

[tencrush]

It was always sort of in the same league as National Geographic, with, to my mind, NatGeo being slightly more nature-y and Discovery being a bit more science-y, if that makes sense. It still has the traditional programmes about science and space and nature and stuff, and Discovery NL even has a children's science show, aimed at children, generally, and not boys. But the adult programming is, according to their press, aimed at men. It doesn't really compute.

[flohkatie.livejournal.com]

Thank you for clearing it up for me. Now I'm only more confused...

But the more I think about it the more I am getting pissed at hearing that women only watch for the pretty. I certainly don't lose any IQ points just because I'm enjoying myself and being unapologetic about it.

Fail for real.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Now I understand why I watch so little of the Discovery show these days. Its a man's channel. No its fairly uninspired cheap TV with episodes shown over and over and over.

Actually I always thought that the History Channel was the Man's Channel. You know, lots of war stuff, planes, battles, blowing things up, same programs over and over.

Don't be offended TenCrush, what they are really saying is that they can put any piece of crap on TV, call it manly and men will be stupid enough to watch it to enhance their macho image.

For the record, I don't watch women's TV either - no Oprah channel for me. Cause its the same thing - crappy TV targeted to women's insecurities - fashion, makeup, makeovers along with 'scare the women stalker' movies. Uh, no thanks.

Actually between the non-reality reality shows and the uninspired writing of TV serials the last few years, I watch almost no TV.

And with the demise of TW - I've only turned on the TV to catch the news and weather. Oh and to watch a DVD.

You'd think someone would realize that there's a huge potential market demograpic of smart men and women who would like to see interesting, well-written, thoughtful programming. But hey, it would take work to produce good programs and its so much easier to hire some mentally unstable people and lock them in a house, or strand them on an island, or have them compete against other equally mentally unhinged people. No not watching. If I want to interact with mentally unhinged people, I have my work (which I get paid for) and my family (which I can't avoid).

[love-jackianto.livejournal.com]

'You'd think someone would realize that there's a huge potential market demograpic of smart men and women who would like to see interesting, well-written, thoughtful programming.'
You would think so, but like you said, that would take actual work. It's much easier (and cheaper) to put crap on t.v.

[tencrush]

If I want to interact with mentally unhinged people, I have my work (which I get paid for) and my family (which I can't avoid).
Don't forget the internet.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Damn, I knew I forgot something. Hey you want to talk about batshit crazy, you can't go wrong on the interwebs!!

I'm particularly fond of people who can't form a single coherent thought let alone a well thought out argument. But again, I can get paid for that at work and can't avoid it with the family.

Guess I'll have to wait for the new Sacha Baron Cohen movie to see anything remotely interesting.

[love-jackianto.livejournal.com]

'but now they add another level of fail by claiming that if women do watch it, they're obviously only watching because they like seeing handsome, rugged, manly men being rugged and manly.'
Wow! That's epic levels of fail. That reminds me of the time RTD told the hysterical women his fans that if they didn't like Torchwood they should just watch Supernatural because those boys are hot; apparently women can only be interested in something if it has hot men in it *rolls eyes*

[tencrush]

It's funny that, because at the same time, most tv execs find it baffling that women have a sexuality or sexual thoughts about anything that doesn't involve making babies. So why they would think we would want to see hot manly men is beyond me.

[love-jackianto.livejournal.com]

'It's funny that, because at the same time, most tv execs find it baffling that women have a sexuality or sexual thoughts about anything that doesn't involve making babies.'
Yeah. That's pretty much the argument I hear for being against same-sex marriage here in the states; marriage is ALL about having children (which means that a women's ONLY job is to be a baby making machine). *big eye roll*

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Well, then I think its should be a requirement to procreate if you want to get married. Childless couples should be forced to divorce because they are not fulfilling their responsibility to god and country (bleh!).

[love-jackianto.livejournal.com]

True. True. Although If they really wanted to uphold the sanctity of marriage they should just make divorce illegal- divorce a big no-no in the bible. If they're going to say being homosexuality is wrong because of one line in the bible, they should at least fellow the rest of the book.

This is why me and organized religion don't get along.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Here's my bottom line on this one - you eat a cheeseburger - you're going to hell. Ditto for that crab cake. And double ditto for that ham sandwich.

And don't tell me I'm wrong. Its right there in the Bible. Leviticus.

See ya in a bit - time to go grocery shopping for my Chanukah (Hannukkah per Hallmark), Christmas (Xmas), Kwanza, Druid, sacrifice a vestal virgin party next weekend.

[love-jackianto.livejournal.com]

'And don't tell me I'm wrong. Its right there in the Bible. Leviticus.'

Haha... That made me laugh.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

It is! No shite! These practices are named as Abominations - you don't much stronger wording than that.

So enjoy your holiday ham you sinners - see you in hell, LOL!!

[love-jackianto.livejournal.com]

'These practices are named as Abominations - you don't much stronger wording than that.'
I'm sure most people just skip over that part.

'So enjoy your holiday ham you sinners - see you in hell, LOL!!'
Maybe that's the a reason they call it deviled ham.

[aviv-b.livejournal.com]

Excellent!

Fine, fine. They can skip over that part, but only if the rest of us get to pick a part we want to skip over.

Personally, I would be choosing the honor thy father and mother part on most days, followed by taking the Lord's name in vain.

Hey why mess around with one of the 600+ instructions in the Big L, when you can easily violate one of the top 10. If you're going to hell, go big!

[jo02]

I've heard this many times over the years too.
Well, that makes ME divorced then!

[meleth.livejournal.com]

I find Bear Grylls incredibly annoying, actually. Give me Grant and Kari any day.

[jo02]

Is that saying that 'slim' = 'smart' ?

[tencrush]

"Slim" means smart, yeah.

[jo02]

Oh . . . that's bad . . . very, very bad.

[santousha.livejournal.com]

WTF? SRSLY
Om eerlijk te zijn had ik zo iets eerder van Amerika verwacht en niet van Nederland. En dat ze dan zo openlijk discrimineren, maar ja de mensen die dit zal irriteren was/is ook nooit hun 'target demographic' geweest.
Dus ja, goeie promotie van hun zijde dan :/.

[tencrush]

Nog niet gezien? Ze hangen hier in elk bushokje.

Het enige Nederlandse commentaar wat ik tot nu toe heb gevonden op het internet (behalve 100 keer hetzelfde persbericht) was een giechelactige blog entry op de site van Linda (het tijdscrift) zo van 'nou, wij blijven toch lekker naar die stoere mannen kijken, hoor!' Boot gemist, dames. FAIL.

[karaokegal.livejournal.com]

This is bizarre. Between Mythbusters and Dirty Jobs, I spend a lot of damn time watching Discovery and there's absolutely no indication in any of the American advertising that would indicate anything like this.

Major WTF-ness going on there.

[tencrush]

Yeah, that's kind of why I brought it up, because I figured this wasn't a global thing and anywhere else I don't think it would be met with a great deal of appreciation. As it is, this is Holland and the only mention of it has been a wee blurb in an online women's magazine saying "we're just going to keep watching those hunky guys anyway!" which kind of goes to show it's a campaing that's pretty at home here.

[crankyholly.livejournal.com]

And all this time, I thought the Discovery Channel was more about this:

[tencrush]

But all those things are interesting and exciting and therefore only of interest to men.

[(Anonymous)]

Dylan wants to know what sort fuckery this is. If they tried this in the US there would be a huge outcry. I love that Boom De Yada ad. There's an icon of it floating around here somewhere from the xkcd parody comic. http://xkcd.com/442/

Also, am I supposed to not like Top Gear? I love Top Gear. What's up with it only being for guys?

I love Mythbusters! Have you seen Storm Chasers over there? It's my new crack. Well, the first two seasons. I still need to catch up on season 3.

[erinnthered.livejournal.com]

It would help if I were logged in so that Dylan can show his confusion...