Etrade takes ageism to an extreme, while Google fights ageism in advertising. Etrade plays to stereotypes, while Google invites the world to "Question your lens" about elders. Here, an analysis of how how Etrade hurts all of us.
Etrade’s Super Bowl commercial portrays working elders as ridiculous and embarrassing. How pathetic, Etrade shows us, for older adults to work in offices, airlines, hospitals and nightclubs. The commercial is a series of slapstick vignettes showing the comedy of elders in the workplace. Viewers are reminded that too few Americans have retirement savings.
The commercial is set to a tune Harry Belafonte made famous, the Banana Boat Song. Instead of singing “Daylight come and I want to go home,” Etrade’s choir sings “85 and I want to go home.”
Etrade tells you to be ashamed of working in your later years. Instead, go home and monitor your Etrade account balances.
More people who are 85 years old likely viewed this super bowl ad than people who are 25 years old, according to Nielsen. Yet ETrade portrays the elders as losers who work because they need the money.
For the “creatives” who produced Etrade’s ageist advertising, imagine how it plays when you replace the elders with women. Last century, many working women were viewed as losers who needed the money because they were (stigmatized) single mothers or married to husbands with embarrassingly modest incomes.
Would ETrade make jokes about women as pilots, surgeons or DJs who “have to” work outside the home, much less want to work?
If you want a reference point to know if a commercial, movie or joke is ageist, replace the elder with a woman or person of color.
You can watch the entire Etrade put-down here:
By the way, the actors are real older workers, including the stuntman who was lit on fire.
Ageism in advertising: a new classic
Here is a screenshot of “DJ Nana” spinning records for ETrade:
Let’s imagine DJ Nana’s life in 1980, as 40 year old named Madison. She was likely spinning Billy Idol records at night after her day job in an office. Madison probably looked to the future and decided to start saving for her retirement by putting some money aside in a savings account.
When Madison opened her retirement account in 1980, the average price of a home in the US was $47,000.
Today, thanks to the NIMBY movement, Proposition 13, neighborhood “preservation,” and artificially low interest rates, a house in San Francisco now costs $1,000,000+. The cut-off for “low income” in San Francisco is $90,000 a year.
Madison did not plan for that. Few minds in 1980 could wrap their mind around those numbers.
Let’s apply the same 10x multipliers onto the economics of being 40 years old today.
If you’re 40 today, when you reach DJ Nana’s age, “low income” in San Francisco could be $500,000 a year. A 2BR-1ba in the Marina District could cost $25 million. You might live 105 years.
What if stocks become as toxic as they were in the 1970s, when the market declined 45%? Will Etrade help you plan for that? Not likely. Life could get in the way: college tuition, a bear market, layoff, divorce, an illness, a bitcoin crash.
The opposite of ageism in advertising: a celebration of opportunities
Meanwhile, over at Google, the real-life DJ Sumiko is celebrated for her full life: dumpling maker by day, Tokyo DJ at night, with plenty of friends and time for the salon.
If you're watching the Olympics tonight, you saw Google's uplifting commercial for its Pixel phone:
For 60 years, Sumiko has shaped dumplings at her family's Gyoza restaurant. She started mixing techno music in her 70's. Today, Tokyo's club crowds love to dance to Sumiko's unique mixing of techno, dance, chason and classical music.
Google's celebration of Sumiko wraps up by asking us to "Change Your Lens." Leave your stereotypes home.
Ageism in advertising reinforces toxic prejudices at work
In his 2005 paper, “Ageism: Prejudice Against Our Feared Future Selves,” Todd Nelson wrote, “Age prejudice in this country is one of the most socially-condoned and institutionalized forms of prejudice.”
Prejudice against older adults in the workplace is particularly toxic. Ageism in advertising reinforces this toxic prejudice.
In "This Chair Rocks: A Manifesto Against Ageism," Ashton Applewhite writes,
"Work we love can keep us alive. I met almost 50 workers in their 80s and 90s who did everything from cutting hair and waiting tables to coaching singers and running PR firms. Story after story confirmed the myriad benefits of employment -- social contact above all -- and the capacity to remain professionally capable and engaged in late life. We pay a huge price, individually and as a society, because so many people are prevented from doing so."
Work is important because "you spend so much time at work that if you're happier there, you're going to be happier with your life. And if you're happy with your life, you're going to be healthier and wealthier," add the authors of Age-Proof, Jean Chatzky, Michael F. Roizen, MD and Ted Spiker.
Jo Ann Jenkins, CEO of AARP, slays the stereotypes of older workers in her book, "Disrupt Aging." There are many social, political and personal reasons why people do or do not work. But, Jenkins writes, "Work as we know it is coming to an end. But as the growing number of people who are choosing to continue working beyond traditional retirement age remind us, that's not necessarily a bad thing. It could be that by disrupting work, we will put our experience to work and, then, discover the most meaningful work of our lives."
In celebrating older adults who work, Google celebrates our humanity, community and interdependence.
We are all in this life together. We are all connected. The future we amplify today is the future we will create for ourselves tomorrow.
Versions of this article previously published here on LinkedIn and on Medium. Connect with me on LinkedIn right now.
Thank you so much for this insightful article. It would be wonderful if it was made available to as many outlets as possible and obtained high viewership. I’m 55 and have been on disability for many years. It is my hope that things will change so that I may be able to work-albeit with appropriate accommodations-yes, even at (especially at!) 85 without worrying about losing financial security and benefits that pay for lifesaving medications. I was immediately offended by this commercial. I searched “ageism and etrade commercial and was pleased to find your article.
Thanks for your note Karen. Yes, I too was immediately offended. I hope you can work even at 85 without worry. There are two good books that came out last year that tackle this issue: Boomer Reinvention, How to Create Your Dream Career Over 50, by John Tarnoff. And also Fifty-Five, Unemployed, and Faking Normal: Your Guide to a Better Life, by Elizabeth White. With the help of remote work opportunities through Upwork, RetirementJobs.com, Fiverr etc., perhaps working at 85 can be the new normal. Thank you for your kind words, please share the article to make it available to as many outlets as possible.
Hi Lisa,
Thanks for your perspective on the subject of ageism in advertisements. We see it every day, hour, minute on TV and in print. Everything seems to be targeting bearded, tattooed millennials. Maybe that’s because the wizened old folks see right through the marketing BS.
Yes — in fact one of the key differentiators in targeting adults in advertising is that they have “seen it all” and “heard it all” and do not take things on face value. Thanks Gordy for your comment.
Criticizing a retirement investment firm for encouraging retirement is like criticizing a Gym for encouraging Weight Loss. Sure it might be offensive to fat people but get some perspective. These are ads meant to sell a product and the best way to sell is FOMO. Kumbaya does not sell products. If you need a rubric to figure out if you are overreacting to the ad just ask yourself what is the product and what problem does it solve. An ad is an ad. Its not social commentary
Interesting. Do you imagine this advertisement for a gym that perhaps showed many obese people is vaudevillian situations, eg. not fitting in the airplane seat, and with a voice over saying, “Don’t get mad, get thin?” Sure, it would be offensive to obese people. But it’s meant to sell a product. Fear of Missing Out on the life of a thin person, instead of Kumbaya, I feel great going to the gym.
You are right, the ad is not social commentary. My blog post is most definitely social commentary. I don’t advocate for marketing where the ends (selling a product) justifies the means (insulting broad groups of people). Commercial transactions should not take precedent over ageism, sexism or racism.
Fat shaming is ok too, then, rather than them both being hurtful and logically skewed? And come on… FOMO? A hipster cliche – the best you got to defend etrade’s cheap shots at elders? You’ll be old someday- if the world hasn’t turned to elder euthanasia,
Hello Ruby,
You and I both agree.
No, fat shaming is not ok. No type of shaming is ok.
My response to Prabuddha was to point out that, put in another context (body image) this would not be ok. So you and I do agree here.
FOMO is a cliche, it is short for fear of missing out. In this context, fear of missing out on this once-in-a-lifetime chance to get a head start on retirement savings.
I couldn’t believe what I was watching when I first saw the E-trade commercial. I just saw it again very recently and can’t believe it hasn’t been pulled. What’s horrible about this commercial, is that it doesn’t really encourage retirement, as Prabuddah suggests. It merely presents the elderly as child-like adults who could not possibly live a full life anymore. Why would I trust a company that would present an entire group of people as bumbling buffoons? This is not FOMO. There is a distinct lack of respect. Consumers know the difference. The Google ad, on the other hand, was beautifully done, and presented an inspiring story.
Sadly, ageism (and actually fat shaming) are some of the last acceptable holdouts for public mockery. With all of the hate already present in our society, why would E-trade add to it?