On September 19, 2007, Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs released a commercial for his new Unforgivable fragrance online. The three minute clip, by Sean John Fragrances, depicts Combs meeting a model in a hotel lobby. They proceed upstairs where, imitating sex, she writhes around on top of him half naked. The advertisement was banned from television in America due to its overt sexuality. However, hits to Comb’s website went through the roof. This is by no means the first time that fashion advertising has caused a furor…
For spring/summer 2006, Lee Jeans launched a controversial campaign nicknamed ‘Lolita’. The series of advertisements portrayed a seemingly underage girl splayed on a bedroom floor in tight denim cut-offs. Childhood foundations the world over were furious about the images, while Lee claimed the shots were ‘tongue in cheek…an exaggerated portrayal of classic denim poses’. They were banned on-and-off around the world, but created as many sales for the label as they did complaints.
Before Diddy and Lee there was Yves Saint Laurent The historic French fashion house encouraged public wrath when it unleashed an image to promote its Opium fragrance in 2001. Featuring a naked
Sophie Dahl arched in ecstasy on a fur blanket, the image was highly criticised as ‘degrading to women’. Needless to say, it helped the perfume reach cult status.
Overt sexuality in fashion advertising - what’s your stance? An effective marketing tool? Tongue in cheek? Or completely unnecessary? Let Tragic know your thoughts and you could win a double movie pass.
i think its sad ppl feel the need to shock and provoke, esp w topics that should be protected such as the sexualisation of young children - but something tells me it aint gonna stop - bc it sells!
Posted by: kate jennings at October 9th, 2007 9:06 pmThere’s no doubt that it’s an effective marketing tool. If a brands brave enough to go to such extents for a product, im definately interested in finding out what all the buzz is about!
Posted by: Zoe at October 10th, 2007 3:37 pmI think it’s disgusting, but at the same time I want to see it… sick. I’d be quite happy if all ads like that were banned, as they are degrading to women and they do encourage early sexualisation of girls.
Posted by: Emily Lawrence Gazal at October 10th, 2007 4:40 pmsex sells……………enough said!
Posted by: e young at October 10th, 2007 7:57 pmAND what about that ad Gucci had years ago with the shaved ‘G’, the above mentioned isn’t half as bad as that was!
Posted by: anonfury at October 11th, 2007 12:03 amIt must have some effectiveness, seeing as though a heap of these ads are continuously made and generate lots of sales to boot. I wish more labels sought to seek other means for their ads rather than sexualising women. It seems unnecessary and sometimes it goes too far, pushing a message that it’s okay for women to be treated in a purely object-like manner. There’s a lot more at: http://about-face.org/ (in the gallery of offenders section)
Posted by: Margaret at October 12th, 2007 3:29 pmPD is gross at any time hardly a big surprise…pardon the pun. Wish the advertisers would get with the programme. Yes sex sell but so does pure beauty.
Posted by: Chez at October 17th, 2007 8:08 am