Skirt and top in hand, I waited in the excessively long line at Urban Outfitters. When I finally approached the counter and handed over my goodies I almost snatched them back and left the store at the sight of the latest catalogue cover. Before I go on, I should clarify that I’m in my 20s, female and I sometimes shimmy up to the bar in outfits I would not want my mother to see. I also sometimes read trashy magazines like Cosmo. This information is for you to realize you are not dealing with this.
This is not the first time blatant sex in marketing for non-sex products has upset me. Sexualized advertising dates before this UO catalogue, before the rich, middle school moms got upset with Abercrombie’s sexual ad campaign that ran (and continues to run) back in the 90s, and before the Marlboro man ever grazed full-page, full-color magazine ads in all his testosterone, come-and-get-me glory. It upsets me because it seems manipulative and unnecessary among other things.
While it doesn’t make it more right for a clothing company to advertise unclothed models to get people all hyped up to try to sell more products, it does seem to be at least more related to their product (i.e. if you are naked, then you do not have clothes on). In the wake of the slumped economy, the travel and tourism industry has been hit especially hard. In June I tweeted, “I’ve got it guys, let’s make videos of our employees with body-painted uniforms to combat airline $$$ troubles http://bit.ly/GgnAs,” referring to an airline’s recent campaign. Naked employees have nothing to do with airplanes (bathroom tryst jokes aside).
I’m resisting the psychology/sociology direction this post could take, mostly because I’m grossly underqualified to get into that. Bottom line - advertising has failed creativity by blanketing sex as an easy sales tool. And as an oversexualized nation, we eat it up and ask for more. Sex does sell, and it disgusts me. Maybe the better question is, do we ask for it because we are oversexualized, or are we oversexualized because of it? Classic case of the chicken or the egg.
“Of all our singles, that’s one that we would have never dreamed in a million years to get the attention. But I guess that America loves their sex and they love their fire.” - Nathan Followill of Kings of Leon to Relevant Magazine on their single “Sex on Fire”
I think it’s one of those art reflecting society reflecting art cycles that feeds into itself. But the biggest problem, at least from what I see, is that sex became so taboo so early in modern American society that you can’t have a naked model without it being “sex.”
That magazine cover isn’t sexual. It’s naked. And yet you immediately jump to “sex sells,” not “naked women sell.” And you’re right to, because that’s what it’s connotation has become here. Nudity does not inherently equal sex. But here, it has. Because we’ve tried to publicly hide away all nudity and anything sexual at all, any little bit of exposure sends us into overdrive.
I won’t pull the typical comparing-TV-here-to-Europe, but there’s something to be said for letting the human body be seen in a neutral, non-sexual way. Sometimes, people are just naked.
I think.
Re: Patrick - As always, your comments are insightful and well said; however, I will take into account that you were a nude model in college for the art department.
I fail to see how that fact does anything but strengthen my argument that nudity can be natural and not sexual.
I wink. While clothed. Because winking while naked WOULD be sexual.
And you’re right. Not much offends me. Especially if it’s true.
That’s repulsive. Uh…where did you say I could get one of those catalogs?
Seriously though, I completely agree. In fact, I feel this way about much of advertising that’s not even inherently sexual (or naked) but completely unrelated to the products which it’s supposed to promote. One of the worst offenders, in my opinion, is the ad firm Crispen, Porter & Bogusky - the kids responsible for http://www.subservientchicken.com and all of the horrible big head Burger King ads, as well as the string of ridiculously bad Volkswagen ads (find you fast, etc.). What does a possessed evil chauvinist rabbit have to do with cars? Somewhere along the way many marketers forget that the products they’re trying to sell have actual value and decide to use unrelated shock, sex or humor to try to garnish empty attention. It wastes the consumers’ time and the clients’ money. When you throw sex into the mix there’s a whole other dimension to be upset about.
Ad folks need to learn that creativity in a vacuum isn’t particularly valuable. An important part of creativity applied to marketing is understanding how to frame an ad to educate a consumer while entertaining them. If your creativity only gets the entertain part right, you’re a lousy marketer. Hmmm. I guess content is king .)
-Matt
Re: Matt - Thanks for the link. I’ve been needing a chicken mask template. Seriously, where do they come up with this stuff?! I’d be interested to see the research they did to back-up the campaign. I’ve noticed some trends with ad professionals - throw lots of money to make ‘fancy’ things without ROI to balance the costs.
I guess I should be ashamed of the naked picture I was going to use for my Twitter. I was just trying to get more followers. Geez! Great post, Abs!
Truly insightful. Although I wouldn’t describe the Marlboro man as ’sexy’. I think he was supposed to be an ideal man that other men could become (if only they smoked his brand). But yeah. I’ve noticed the over-sexualization of ads during the past few years. This Burger King poster is the coup de grâce: http://bit.ly/8Q4m8