I'm sure you've noticed that the use of sexuality on TV and in advertisements has been.. On the rise, especially if you look back 10 years or so (check national geographics for ads, TV is pretty easy to get from back then). Anyway, I recently saw an article on a study that found that sexual themes distract the viewer from the product, so that they come away remembering the sexual themes but not the product. In the same vein, (I can't find that article anymore :(), [url=http://www.cnn.com/2004/SHOWBIZ/Music/01/21/music.sex.reut/]this article[/url] disputes the declining effectiveness of a 'rampantly sexual' theme in media in general. All of this seems to be ignored, however, by ads like [url=www.napstergirl.tv]the napster girl ad[/url]. The question is...
Who's right? And who's wrong? And what does it mean?
Er.. What do you mean by 'jill sandwich? I don't get the reference.
Wow... this thread's totally flip-flopped. That kinda sucks.
It's ridiculous that shows depicting violent acts is more socially acceptable than the intrinsic evil that is reproduction. Get over it, people fuck. If anyone's dumb enough to be affected in any significant way (offended or changed) by a commercial depicting images that wouldn't even be classified as softcore, then they need a serious reality check.
So, people advocating it are dipshits, people who buy into it are as well and on an equal level of immaturity as those offended by it.
Sexual themes don't really bother me unless it's an ad that pretty much says "CHEW THIS GUM AND YOU WILL HAVE SEX WITH THE PERSON RIGHT NEXT TO YOU!!"
UHHHH! UUUUUUNNNGGGGH! UNF UNF UNF ahhhhhhhh....
CAR INSURANCE!
[quote=VG Chat]You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Wings again.
[spoiler]w00t[/spoiler]
I think it's pretty stupid unless it's for a sexual product (ie: condoms).
The Napster girl, Nissan, etc all use this stuff just for attention.
I don't know, though... The Napster girl ad used it to great effect. The analogy was sound. Perfumes and the like, fair play, because that's kind of the point.
But, say, a mobile phone. Or a new type of crisp. I've seen sexual adverts for both of these. And they just don't work.
they got your attention and got you to remember that you saw the advert for that product, right?
then they worked.
advertising isn't always about making you rush out and buy something RIGHT NOW. it's about establishing "mindshare", planting the seed in the viewer so when they are going to purchase their next mobile phone/car insurance plan/computer, the name of your company will pop into their minds.
[quote]they got your attention and got you to remember that you saw the advert for that product, right?
The thing I'm wondering is this: according to the article I read, you *don't end up remembering the name of the product*, just the sexual themes in the advertisement. So it tends to defeat itself - do you think that's likely to be true?
I think the 'omg buy this and u will have teh sex0rz' ad that irritated me the most tended to be the various shoe and cigarette ads. I just don't get the logic:
"Protect your feet and... yeah... Um. Because people look at your feet first!"
or
"Smoke and you'll die young, but make babies fast! OMG! Because people like being around carcinogens - it's COOL!"
if the article you read was correct, then you wouldn't associate sexual images with cigarettes and shoes!
This is true - so they're effective, to some point - the thing is that try as I might, I can't remember *which* products were using that kind of ad (with a few exceptions). So is it just that I wouldn't have remembered those exceptions anyway, or is it more general? (is it more difficult to remember brands in general)
The purpose of advertising is, simply, to make you think about their product. Not buy it. Not even think positively.
However, just because they're trying to attract people to their products with sexual themes doesn't make it affective advertising. So, you watch Napter girl and find it arousing. Are you thinking about Napster? Not necessarily. Which, in turn, makes it ineffective and stupid.
Personally I tend not to associate themes/images with products so I generally don't find much advertising that uses such techniques effective at all. But that's just me.
Personally, I don't think it has a great effect. But, I have barely seen an ad like that so I couldn't really judge here.
I mean... whoever came up with that phrase "sex sells" couldn't have been wrong.
Misoxeny, that's exactly the idea I was trying to get across. The thing is, advertising like.. I dunno, [url=http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/images/column/120205/jonze.mov]this[/url], or maybe [url=http://www.devilducky.com/media/6789/]this[/url] are much more effective - both are totally nonsexual ads, and nonetheless are *incredibly* cool, and get cleanly and directly to the point.
you better not try and argue against misoxeny, you only have 22 posts
[quote=father o'blivion]you are contradicting yourself.
you first say that "the purpose of advertising is to make you think about the product." you then say that the napster girl is not effective advertising because you aren't thinking about napster when you see that ad.
by discussing this "napster girl", and by calling her just that, "napster girl", you are proving that the advertisement is effective. you are thinking about napster.
You totally and utterly missed his point. His point was that while, yes, you are thinking about the "object" that Napster used to advertise its product, you are not thinking about the product, but merely the "object used."
True advertisement shouldn't be based soley on sex, as most of them are nowadays, but based on pure marketing tactic. And, in fact, it wasn't Mis who contradicted himself, it was you.
I heard this somewhere, but it illustrates my feelings exactly. I'm sick and tired of people targeting my penis instead of my mind.