Who is the girl in the tropicana commercial

Do you simply call any smile by a female "passive" because it serves your point, or is there actually any way of telling passive from active? As a father to a boy, the ad will totally work with a boy, and I disagree with the first comment. Kids are kids, and girls are no less a handful than boys. It is CLEAR to me that the whole cumbersome "to handle" thing was specifically added to avoid the sexual interpretation of "easy", because, for crying out loud, this is a little girl. If they wanted sexual innuendo, it would've been much easier to simply say "hard" or "difficult" and "easy".

They clearly wanted to avoid that. You can read sexual innuendo into many of the common words in English Hard! As in penis!

One wonders if Benjamin's comment is a parody or not. That this question presents itself, I'm afraid, speaks volumes on the problems of the critique often offered here. There's a sickening coyness about the flower-holding girl that reminds me of the 70s ads wherein the product is supposed to make the mom as "innocently sexy" as the daughter.

The tough-looking little girl in black looks like she's pissed off about something and she's not backing down. Lots of people find that to be troubling behavior in a little girl, and want to "handle it" in very negative ways. In this case, applied to females, it means "not easily controlled, therefore liable to make a big mess that nobody wants to clean up or deal with" versus "easily controlled and with a Mona Lisa smile to boot , therefore likely to walk the straight-and-narrow and do exactly what's expected, no more no less.

Wow, I can't believe nobody even mentioned this. Of all the people who commented here, nobody thought to mention this:. I found the whole professional vs marriage girl? These girls are barely pre teens and already the ad is already putting these expectations on them.

One on the left caucasian, brunette wearing a business like pants [ Jena: That's why the people who complain in the comments section about everyone over-analyzing the image confuse me. There are a bunch of other sites, like AdRants, that take a more casual approach.

Isn't over-analyzing the whole point of a "sociological images" website? A bottle of orange juice with a handle might be easier to handle, but I prefer a carton, it's more rewarding. I think you are reading in a little to much in terms of the sexual references. The analogy is clearly to parenting, and the girls are prepubescent. The flowers are meant to indicate that the girl is kind going out of her way to be nice. The only problem I really have with this one is the obvious inference that easier is better, and that therefore the 'feminine' girl is better.

I do wonder if we would have the same problem with this ad if it were a boy on the left? What do you think? In that instance gender stereotypes would still be prevalent, but the message might be slightly different. Once again, you miss the point of this whole website. Girls are expected not to show anger or any "negative" emotion, while boys are treated like there is something wrong with them when they don't.

The girl on the right is also "easier" to handle because she's conforming to traditional gender roles: wearing a dress, holding flowers, smiling, whereas the girl on the right isn't: wearing pants, has her arms crossed, looks like she's irritated about something I worked in advertising for 10 years.

Most of the designers were too dumb to understand subtext. Shallow people rule at ad agencies. On the other hand, this ad did exactly what it intended to do. By creating controversy, it has achieved a much higher level of effectiveness, because advertising success is chiefly measured by visibility. I definitely don't think Benjamin was "reading too much into it" whatever that means. I support his point.

It is not like the advertisers didn't give consideration to how the girls would be standing. Their clothes, postures and facial expressions weren't just spur of the moment things. Disavowing the reading that the girls are being sexualized is harmful in itself. I think the sexual references are right - only because of our society's preoccupation with making adult women resemble prepubescent bodies think waxing.

A smile is more than just a smile. It has everything to do with its context. And from the context of her coy, shy and passive body language, it makes the smile passive, as well. If you are so inclined, please do inform me what exactly is NOT passive about her body language.

Similar to how the word "easy" hovering above a female with flowers purity and long flowing hair smiling at the camera coyly MIGHT elicit someone to think of the sexual context. Right -- isn't sociology the practice of bullshit over-interpretations? If people want to worry about things like reasonableness, maybe they should study a real social science like economics.

The whole point is that people can read into things whatever they want! Samantha - what Jesse said. And please stop patronizing me. I'm not a sociologist, I'm a political scientist, actually, but I get to work often enough with sociologists to know that sociology isn't all about assuming whenever there's an image of a girl everybody needs to shout "SEX!

You make sociology sound like a weird drinking game. Here's my point of view: you need to be a non-parent to look at a six year old girl with the cation "east to handle" and think this has anything to do with sex. For crying out loud, Ghostwax, go a daycare centre and see how boys who show anger are treated. The problem with many of the posts in this blog is that first if shoots the arrow, and then it draws the target around it.

First it assumes the stereotypes are there, and then it looks for reasons to say there's a stereotype in the picture. If you ASSUME that every image of a girl in the media is sexualized, then there's hardly any point in trying to prove to you otherwise, since you're not basing your interpretation on the actual image, you're basing it on your assumption.

There's nothing passive about the girl, for example. Again, I'm not even sure what "passive" means in this context. Maybe you can enlighten me. Here's how I interpret the pose of the girl: she's sharing a secret with the viewer.

She's obviously hiding the flowers behind her back ready to give them to a parent, maybe? So it's playful, not passive. Guess I must sexually desire this girl. And Benjamin's critique is NOT valid. It's idiotic. It's ridiculous. It's about as valid as me saying that flowers cause allergies, and therefore the girl holding them is actually abusive and irritating.

It is based on nothing but his own idiosyncratic associative thought process. If I say the girl on the left reminds me of a girl I once dated who was the hottest sex I ever had, does that make my critique that it's an oversexualized representation of a little girl valid? Sociology doesn't mean you can say any damn thing that crosses your mind just because it occurred to you, and then assert that it's a valid point. It requires actual thought, processes, mechanisms, and every once in a while, actual proof that what you're saying has any relation to real life.

If sociology was anything like what some people here say it is, I'd vote to close our sociology department down and send the people studying it to write op-eds for niche newspapers. These two paragraphs are not aimed at Lisa and Wendy, who I might disagree with often, but who, I believe, hold sociology in somewhat higher regard that some of its so-called defenders in the comments.

Not that the cultural meanings discussed in the previous posts aren't in the ad, or that they're not real and true. They are. It's just that, as a fifteen year veteran of print advertising, I know that they were not intended to be there.

Let's make and ad that shows two kids, one hard to handle and one easy to handle, and then imply that the product is similar to the easy to handle one. How do we show a kid that is hard to handle? Especially in a visual ad that will be viewed for an average of 1. Kids, god bless 'em, are not capable of performances of that nuance. We can't cast two different kids, cuz how can a kid's face just look hard to handle?.

We also know that the art direction has to be simple and complete, preferably on white, so as to continue associations with the colorway of the product. OK, let's take a step back. What magazine is this in? Mother Jones? Let's see how do those readers identify a hard to handle child by wardrobe? What's that? We have a library of images searchable by keywords that have all been tested with our intended demographic?

Oh, it appears that our intended demographic still largely believes that black clothes worn by pre-teens is a reliable predictor of difficulty? What's that again? Our library of market research shows that parents as a whole find pre-teen girls the most difficult age of child-rearing? That's what we'll do. One pre-teen girl, two opposite outfits, one black and scowling, one opposite.

It's seeking to work with the ones that are already there. Business pure and simple. Fucked up, sure, but not really where the battle lies. They should have cast a boy, not because it's better, but only because it avoids all the psuedo intellectual brain beating on this page. Those of us that seek to combat the true cultural implications of this, had best do it with our own children, through education, volunteering with or donating to womensheart.

Not by piling on the blind work a bunch of ad people who are just trying to keep there own pre teen girls from ending up homeless. I think the "semiotic" defense is facile at best, giving a philosophical excuse to once again objectify, sexualize, and degrade girls. The only good thing to come out of this excuse for an ad is the outrage and examination of the anti-female hate-fest that our violent society refuses to jettison.

I didn't catch the bride v. I thought it was simply goth attitude v. Someone at this agency should be fired. Commercial Jingles.

Study now. See Answer. Best Answer. If it is the girl at the piano it is Ingrid Michaelson!! Good day sunshine song. Study guides. Q: Who is the girl in the tropicana commercial?

Write your answer Related questions. Who is singing in the Tropicana commercial? Is that Matthew Perry in the tropicana commercial? Who is the lady in the blue dress in the Tropicana OJ Commercial? Who is the girl model of tropicana fruit burst? Who sings Good morning in the tropicana commercial?

Who sells Tropicana Twister Orange Soda? Who is the girl in the ihop commercial? Who is the pretty blonde actress in the Tropicana commercial? Who is the young male model in tropicana slim commercial? Is the Tropicana casino owned by the Tropicana juice company? When was Tropicana Products created? When was Tropicana Field created?

What is the commercial with a girl stepping into window where people are bbqing? Who is the girl dancing tango in milk life commercial? Tropicana human resources employment where i can apply for a job.? Who is the girl in the Stanton optical commercial? Who is singing the good morning song on the tropicana commercial? Who is the girl in the Bluesky commercial? Who is the girl in the Verizon dare commercial? Who is the blond girl in the Whiskas cat food commercial with the girl-guide at the door?

Where is Tropicana field located? When was Tropicana City Mall created? When was Tropicana Las Vegas created? Who is the girl singing the song in the eduction connection commercial? Who is the girl in the eharmony commercial?

Study Guides. Trending Questions. What is the fourth element of the periodic table of elements?