The new John Lewis home insurance ad is meant to resonate with someone like me. Not just because I want to protect the nice things in my house from the terror of family life, but because one of my sons is gay. But as we watched the new ad from John Lewis, it wasn’t the word inclusion that came to mind, it was the word stereotype – despite what I imagine were best intentions.
For context, the new ad sets out to land a very deliberate and overt message of LGBT+ inclusion. It is a direct remake of the brand’s 2015 ad “Tiny dancer”. In the original, we see a little girl twirling around her home like a prima ballerina. Totally immersed in her performance, she is oblivious to the chaos she nearly creates.
In the new ad we see the little girl replaced by a little boy. The little boy is also in a dress, wreaking havoc with paint, make-up and glitter. Now, you could read this as just a child playing dress-up. Little boys the world over like to dress up, and play with glitter, and dance. I have three sons, and all of them did all these things: the gay one and the straight ones.
But it seems to me it is not meant to be read in this way. Remaking an ad only recently released is very rare. To recreate an ad but switch the sex of the main child makes the new version quite clearly a statement to the LGBT+ community.
And this is where it gets messy.
How you read the new ad depends on your perspective. You could read it as a young child who is freely exploring their gender identity. But to my son it read as a young gay child presenting with all the old-fashioned high camp stereotypes of what it means to be gay. And it made him feel awkward.
Here’s the problem. We want to see better representation on our screen. I want my son to feel that he has his place in the world like anyone else. But how do you represent something that is not necessarily visible like sexuality or, in many cases, gender identity? In this case the solution was to make it explicit by leaning on recognisable stereotypes.
In a world where we are finally getting to grips with the fact that gender and sexuality are fluid and on a spectrum, advertisers will inevitably run into difficulty. To tell stories quickly we need signs and signifiers. But we must be careful, because how we choose to overtly show someone’s sexuality or gender identity can be reassuring for some, and isolating for others.
If you want to make a statement, then I believe the right way to do it is to tell a story about sexuality or gender identity that has a truly relevant intersection with the brand. In this scenario, you do not need to revert to stereotypes to make your point.
I’m still in awe of Starbucks’ ad from last year, "What’s your name", in which we see a young trans boy having his identity reaffirmed through being called by his name. It is powerful, authentic, and natural. There is none of the awkwardness of the John Lewis ad about it, because his identity is the story, not a cameo role.
Vic Day is managing director of Ogilvy advertising