Legendary North Dakota

By James Osborne
Contributing Writer

Last Thursday the North Dakota Tourism Board’s decision to pull an ad that struck controversy on FaceBook got national attention. The words “sickening” and “sexist” were used to describe the ad. Pat Finken, the president of Odney Advertising, the firm who designed the ad claimed that it wasn’t meant to be racy saying it was “a little flirty, a little fun,” and that he hadn’t anticipated this kind of response. 

I’ve decided to dissect the offending ad to see if we can make sense of what all the hubbub was about.

1. I think the most suggestive word has got to be “decisions”. As in “which of these North Dakota girls will I have sex with later?” The ad finds its male audience right out of the gate. From an outsider’s perspective, I would assume that North Dakota women were easy if the ad were accurate.

2.The word “legend” is used simply to compliment the “Legendary” campaign the board is pushing, but what does it mean in this context? What legendary act will these studs engage in? This can rightly offend people of either gender. Are they insinuating that the men of North Dakota are chicken-hearted pansies who can’t satisfy their women? Are North Dakota’s uncultured trollops so bored that they stand around on the street waiting to envelop tourists penises?

3. The cry of “sexism” is ridiculous. Our world is brimming with advertising and other media far more sexist than this which makes me believe that the problem with the ad was the choice of models. Once the ads interpreter reaches the word “decisions” he is made to visualize having sex with one of these women who are not typical of the type of women normally used in this kind of advertising. My theory is that if they had used the standard fare—abnormally thin, heaving-breasted models (and created an ad truly more sexist than this)—there would have been no controversy.

I applaud the use of realistic (attainable) people in advertising, but the women here don’t strike me as the type to peruse the Fargo streets trolling for booty. These women look like they are educated and probably have interests, so objectifying them seems a little unfair. Basically, sexualizing women who haven’t been pre-sexualized by their own appearance is awkward for consumers.

4. The most sickening thing about this is the overuse of cheap, cotton-blended garments bought off-rack from Fashion Bug. Dressing the models like my middle-aged aunt en route to a rotary club banquet almost justifies Finken’s claim that they were not trying to be racy. What are those culottes, seriously?

I’m not from the area but I’ve been around long enough to recognize what’s truly offensive about this ad. The popular belief outside of the state is that it’s full of hokey, lovable dolts and pregnant police women.

Those stereotypes may be inaccurate but so is the view from the window of one of the most upscale bars in Fargo. Our streets are not occupied with wanton sirens and hip swinging tourists who wear their collars over their jackets. It may have more to offer than people think but that image is simply not what this place is.

Most importantly, the ad says more than “come to North Dakota,” it says, “your sexual performance will inspire tall tales and limericks among the unsophisticated pigs of North Dakota, male tourist.” It says, “your big city charms will wow the hillbilly harlots of North Dakota, male tourist.” It says, “come be what you’ve failed to be in whatever city you’re from, male tourist.” Odney is pimping North Dakota with this ad.

I also understand that stirring controversy over advertising only ensures that it will be seen by more people. Had nobody been offended by the ad, most of us would have never seen it. So maybe the board and the staff at Odney are a lot smarter than we give them credit for.

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)