(And What We Can Learn From Them)
7 minutes read time.
Old-school ads can be cringeworthy. From blatantly sexist slogans to harmful health claims, many vintage ads reveal just how far we’ve come. But looking at these outdated ads isn’t just about getting a laugh (or a grimace); it’s a valuable lesson in how society—and advertising—has shifted, and why present-day brands need to be careful about what they put out there.
Here’s a look at a few types of vintage ads that would never make it past today’s standards, along with the lessons they offer for today’s brands.
1. Sexist Advertising
Ads from the 1950s often featured women as housewives, implying their “place” was in the kitchen. Brands like Kleenex and Van Heusen frequently showed women serving or obeying men, reinforcing the idea that this was their only role.
- Example #1: Van Heusen “Show Her It’s a Man’s World” (1950s)
This print ad showed a woman kneeling beside a man, serving him breakfast in bed, with the slogan “Show her it’s a man’s world.” The image implied that a woman’s role was to cater to her husband, reinforcing restrictive gender roles. - Example #2: Alcoa Aluminum – “You Mean a Woman Can Open It?” (1953)
In 1953, Alcoa Aluminum ran an ad promoting their new HyTop twist-off bottle cap. The ad featured a woman holding a bottle of Del Monte ketchup, with the tagline, “You mean a woman can open it?” The word “woman” was underlined for emphasis, and the ad explained that the cap could be opened “easily—without a knife blade, a bottle opener, or even a husband!” Although this ad was technically about packaging innovation, it relied on the stereotype that women needed “simplified” products for basic tasks.
These ads are now seen as examples of the casual sexism common in 1950s advertising and are often cited as symbols of outdated gender roles.
Why It Wouldn’t Work Now: Today, blatant sexism would (rightfully) spark outrage. Audiences value gender equality, and brands that rely on stereotypes risk backlash and damage to their reputation.
Takeaway for Brands: Avoid gender stereotypes. Treat all genders with respect. Consumers expect brands to reflect contemporary values, not reinforce outdated norms.
2. Health Claims Without Evidence
Think of those cigarette ads with doctors recommending specific brands, or Coca-Cola ads from the early 20th century promoting soda as a health tonic. These ads made bold health claims without evidence, leading consumers to believe the products were good for them.
- Example #1: Camel Cigarettes – “More Doctors Smoke Camels” (1940s)
In the 1940s, Camel ran a notorious ad campaign with the slogan, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.” These ads featured images of doctors in white coats, implying that smoking was safe—maybe even recommended. One ad, asking “How mild can a cigarette be?” was published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Volume 240, Number 17, April 28, 1949), supposedly vouching for the “mildness” and health benefits of Camel cigarettes. - Example #2: Coca-Cola “For a Healthy Thirst” (1900s)
Early Coca-Cola ads promoted the drink as a health tonic, despite it containing high levels of sugar and (in the original recipe) trace amounts of cocaine.
Why It Wouldn’t Work Now: Today’s regulations require proof for health claims. The public is also far more health-conscious and aware of misleading tactics.
Lesson for Brands: Be honest with health claims. False advertising can lead to lawsuits, loss of trust, and social media backlash. Honesty and transparency build brand credibility.
3. Racist or Cultural Stereotypes
Vintage ads often used offensive stereotypes to sell products, from depicting people of color in demeaning ways to exploiting cultural symbols without respect.
- Example #1: Aunt Jemima – “The Happy Black Cook” (1889-2020)
Aunt Jemima was a popular American breakfast brand known for its pancake mix and syrup, developed by the Pearl Milling Company in 1888–1889 as the first “ready-mix” cooking product. The brand’s mascot, Aunt Jemima, was based on the “Mammy” stereotype—a caricature of a Black woman as a cheerful, subservient cook, rooted in Jim Crow-era racism. In June 2020, amid calls for racial equality, Quaker Oats announced it would retire the Aunt Jemima brand and logo, rebranding as Pearl Milling Company. - Example #2: Pears’ Soap – “Washing Away Ethnicity” (1880s)
One ad for Pears’ Soap showed a white man washing a dark coloured skin child with soap, “washing away” the child’s ethnicity to make them look white. At the time, this ad promoted the idea of “civilizing” non-white people.
Why It Wouldn’t Work Now: Thankfully, this is obvious today. Consumers demand cultural sensitivity and respectful representation. Racist depictions, even unintentional ones, can spark immediate boycotts.
Lesson for Brands: Respect cultural differences. Avoid stereotypes and tokenism, and consult people from the represented communities when creating culturally specific ads. When in doubt, ask.
4. Body Shaming and Unrealistic Beauty Standards
Throughout the 20th century, many ads promoted rigid beauty ideals, often by making consumers feel insecure about their own bodies. Products like weight-loss aids, hygiene products, and skin-lightening creams suggested that beauty meant thinness, fairness, or a specific body type.
- Example #1: Lysol “Feminine Hygiene” Ads (1950s)
Lysol, now known as a household cleaning brand, ran ads in the 1950s marketing their disinfectant as a feminine hygiene product. The ads suggested that women should use Lysol to maintain “marital happiness” by staying “fresh” and attractive for their husbands. These ads subtly implied that a woman’s worth depended on meeting unrealistic standards of beauty and hygiene. - Example #2: Palmolive Soap – “Keep That Schoolgirl Complexion” (1930s)
This soap ad implied that women’s worth was tied to youth and beauty, promising to help women maintain a “schoolgirl complexion.”
Why It Wouldn’t Work Now: Modern audiences reject the idea that a person’s value is based on appearance. Ads that reinforce narrow beauty standards come off as manipulative and can trigger backlash.
Lesson for Brands: Embrace diversity and promote inclusive beauty. Consumers today appreciate authenticity in representation, and brands that focus on empowerment, rather than shame, are more likely to build loyalty.
5. Environmental Irresponsibility
Decades ago, ads glorified disposable plastics and gas-guzzling cars with no concern for environmental impact. These ads reflected a time when sustainability wasn’t a priority.
- Example #1: “Throwaway Living” – Life Magazine (1955)
Life Magazine ran an article celebrating disposable plastic products with the tagline “Throwaway Living,” encouraging people to embrace a culture of waste. - Example #2: Humble Oil – “Each Day Humble Supplies Enough Energy to Melt 7 Million Tons of Glacier!” (1960s)
Humble Oil (now Exxon) ran an ad boasting about their fuel output, claiming it could “melt glaciers”—a horrifying thought by today’s standards.
Why It Wouldn’t Work Now: With today’s awareness of climate change, ads like these would be condemned. Environmental responsibility is now a priority for consumers.
Lesson for Brands: Embrace sustainability. Consumers expect brands to reduce their environmental footprint, and anything wasteful or harmful can spark backlash.
Final Thoughts
These examples reveal how advertising has evolved, with new ethical expectations emerging each decade. Looking back at these cringe-worthy—or straightforward horrible— ads is a reminder that we’ve made progress toward valuing honesty, respect, and cultural awareness. Brands that ignore these expectations risk damage to their reputation.
When creating your next campaign, remember: what might seem harmless (or funny) today could look very different tomorrow. Let these cautionary tales guide you toward ads that age well and keep your brand’s reputation intact.