Observer Article!

flanger20002003

I'm writing an article for the next Observer issue (due out the week after the 3 week break), specifically about the theme of 'sex sells' in advertising. Basically, I'm looking for opinions from UCD students from all faculties about the issue.

What do you think about sex in advertising (eg. recent Lynx campaign)? Do you find it makes you more inclined to buy a product/service if it is associated with sex? Do you think advertising today relies on it too heavily?

These are just some of the questions I'm looking at at the moment, but by all means feel free to contribute whatever your opinion is on the issue. I'm hoping to include a few of the quotes from this thread in the article itself, assuming users are Ok with being quoted, and of course provided the mods don't have a problem with it either!

Any opinions would be greatly appreciated,
Cheers!

Spectator#1

If sex sells, it certainly doesn't work on a conscious level. I can't imagine how anyone would look at an ad and go, "yeah, (s)he's hot, I'll buy that!".

I think it's a pre-requisite that the product/service being sold is of particular interest to you in the first place, unless it's an impulse buy. I wouldn't buy Bovril no matter what they did in their ad's.

As far as I'm concerned - sex doesn't sell unless sex is literally the service being sold, which is illegal in this country.

humbert

I'll be more likely to watch an otherwise trite boring ad if there's a pretty lady in it and on a sub concious level it's quite likely there's some positive association going on. It'd prefer them to use that quite obvious tactic than either the "we're just a big down to earth multinational next door kinda company who gets your down to earth needs" or the "where going to get this screeching halfwit to drill this image so far into the back of your head you're never fucking ever going to forget our product" approaches.

Dontico

i dont like "sexy adds". i dont like mixing sex with things that arnt to do with sex. i dont like sex in films either or tv. i dont think necessary. porn should stay porn. comedies and horrors should stay comedies and horrors.

GuffFromSwine

Sex definitely sells,its the most prominent advertising tool around.Would anyone seriously try and advertise a product with Mary Harney dancing around in a bikini?I think not.
Try and mention how ridiculously upset sections of the college media and SU got recently when a society (cant remember who-sorry)had girls in bikinis on their event posters...yet they're nowhere to be seen when someone runs one of its regular 'Glamourise prostitution!! For one night only Pimps and Hoes!! what a figurehead you are if you beat drug money out of defenceless women!!' nights.

GuffFromSwine

Dontico wrote:

i dont like "sexy adds". i dont like mixing sex with things that arnt to do with sex. i dont like sex in films either or tv. i dont think necessary. porn should stay porn. comedies and horrors should stay comedies and horrors.

would you not agree though that sex is an ever present in areas of everday life which arnt at first glance strictly sexual, and therefore its justified to make an appearence in other genres (for want of a better word)?

Dontico

GuffFromSwine wrote:

would you not agree though that sex is an ever present in areas of everday life which arnt at first glance strictly sexual, and therefore its justified to make an appearence in other genres (for want of a better word)?

i just dont find it entertaining to mix horror or comedy with sex. i dont find it entertaining watching people having sex also i dont like seeing people kiss.

Young Siward

Apparently the current issue of the Economist has a an article on this. Basically, using 'sex' to sell during 'Sex in the city' will simply register no effect at all, whereas the same ad will work much much better during say 'Malcolm in the Middle'.

Pretty obvious come to think about it, but interesting none the less....

pretty*monster

GuffFromSwine wrote:

would you not agree though that sex is an ever present in areas of everday life which arnt at first glance strictly sexual, and therefore its justified to make an appearence in other genres (for want of a better word)?

Does the world have to be like that though?

I think it's defiantly a bad thing that sex is everywhere these days. It probably does sell, because otherwise advertisers would find something else to flog their products with. In fact it's a bad this that advertising in general is everywhere these days. But apparently no one my stand in the way of making money. :rolleyes:

FionnMatthew

I've gotten to the point where just about every piece of advertising irritates me to an acute degree. I can always see it coming, I can always see the board-room where they came up with a 'clever' conceit or a 'snappy' angle.

I hate that. I particularly hate bad advertising. You know. When the slogan doesn't quite work; when the elements of the ad don't quite cohere as you suspect they were meant to; when the ad company has obviously been thinking in stereotypes to the point where they probably alienate their target audience and annoy everyone.

Sex in advertising is one of these things. Sex in advertising just pisses me off. It really pisses me off. I mean it. This is one of the things that really irks me in life, is having to see 200+ advertisements I don't want to see just in the course of an average day.

Sex doesn't sell. Not to me. It's so ****ing obvious, it insults me. That anyone would regard me as so easily manipulable that all they have to do is associate their product, which could be anything from fruit juice to computer hardware, with a 'hot babe'; that instantly turns me off the product. When I see the product in a shop, I'm reminded of being impersonally underestimated and patronised, by-proxy and en masse, by a committee of media execs who don't know me, and couldn't care less about me except insofar as I give away my money for something I don't need. To hell with that.

I actively don't buy products with ad campaigns like that. I'll go out of my way; I'll go without things I really need. Someone once told me that if I'm always thinking of the product, even in a negative way, then the ad worked. I don't think that's true. I don't think advertising firms ever intend to instill a revenge motivated hatred for their charge's products in potential consumers. And being used by advertising campaigns, having their trivial messages and trite, transparent images forced onto my retinae, through my senses and into my consciousness by their aggressive placement everywhere, being used like that: that makes me want revenge.

Chakar

FionnMatthew wrote:

I've gotten to the point where just about every piece of advertising irritates me to an acute degree. I can always see it coming, I can always see the board-room where they came up with a 'clever' conceit or a 'snappy' angle.

I hate that. I particularly hate bad advertising. You know. When the slogan doesn't quite work; when the elements of the ad don't quite cohere as you suspect they were meant to; when the ad company has obviously been thinking in stereotypes to the point where they probably alienate their target audience and annoy everyone.

Sex in advertising is one of these things. Sex in advertising just pisses me off. It really pisses me off. I mean it. This is one of the things that really irks me in life, is having to see 200+ advertisements I don't want to see just in the course of an average day.

Sex doesn't sell. Not to me. It's so ****ing obvious, it insults me. That anyone would regard me as so easily manipulable that all they have to do is associate their product, which could be anything from fruit juice to computer hardware, with a 'hot babe'; that instantly turns me off the product. When I see the product in a shop, I'm reminded of being impersonally underestimated and patronised, by-proxy and en masse, by a committee of media execs who don't know me, and couldn't care less about me except insofar as I give away my money for something I don't need. To hell with that.

I actively don't buy products with ad campaigns like that. I'll go out of my way; I'll go without things I really need. Someone once told me that if I'm always thinking of the product, even in a negative way, then the ad worked. I don't think that's true. I don't think advertising firms ever intend to instill a revenge motivated hatred for their charge's products in potential consumers. And being used by advertising campaigns, having their trivial messages and trite, transparent images forced onto my retinae, through my senses and into my consciousness by their aggressive placement everywhere, being used like that: that makes me want revenge.

:eek:

Spectator#1

FionnMatthew wrote:

I've gotten to the point where just about every piece of advertising irritates me to an acute degree. I can always see it coming, I can always see the board-room where they came up with a 'clever' conceit or a 'snappy' angle.

I hate that. I particularly hate bad advertising. You know. When the slogan doesn't quite work; when the elements of the ad don't quite cohere as you suspect they were meant to; when the ad company has obviously been thinking in stereotypes to the point where they probably alienate their target audience and annoy everyone.

Sex in advertising is one of these things. Sex in advertising just pisses me off. It really pisses me off. I mean it. This is one of the things that really irks me in life, is having to see 200+ advertisements I don't want to see just in the course of an average day.

Sex doesn't sell. Not to me. It's so ****ing obvious, it insults me. That anyone would regard me as so easily manipulable that all they have to do is associate their product, which could be anything from fruit juice to computer hardware, with a 'hot babe'; that instantly turns me off the product. When I see the product in a shop, I'm reminded of being impersonally underestimated and patronised, by-proxy and en masse, by a committee of media execs who don't know me, and couldn't care less about me except insofar as I give away my money for something I don't need. To hell with that.

I actively don't buy products with ad campaigns like that. I'll go out of my way; I'll go without things I really need. Someone once told me that if I'm always thinking of the product, even in a negative way, then the ad worked. I don't think that's true. I don't think advertising firms ever intend to instill a revenge motivated hatred for their charge's products in potential consumers. And being used by advertising campaigns, having their trivial messages and trite, transparent images forced onto my retinae, through my senses and into my consciousness by their aggressive placement everywhere, being used like that: that makes me want revenge.

Fionn's having a lie-down now everyone. It'll be ok in the morning...

flanger20002003

Thanks for the replies, this'll really help with the article:). I've selected a few quotes I'd like to use in the article, if anyone would prefer not to be quoted, PM me and I'll leave it out of the article. Cheers again!

Spectator#1 wrote:

If sex sells, it certainly doesn't work on a conscious level. I can't imagine how anyone would look at an ad and go, "yeah, (s)he's hot, I'll buy that!".

I think it's a pre-requisite that the product/service being sold is of particular interest to you in the first place, unless it's an impulse buy. I wouldn't buy Bovril no matter what they did in their ad's.

GuffFromSwine wrote:

Sex definitely sells,its the most prominent advertising tool around.Would anyone seriously try and advertise a product with Mary Harney dancing around in a bikini?I think not.

humbert wrote:

I'll be more likely to watch an otherwise trite boring ad if there's a pretty lady in it and on a sub concious level it's quite likely there's some positive association going on.

panda100

flanger20002003 wrote:

Thanks for the replies, this'll really help with the article:). I've selected a few quotes I'd like to use in the article, if anyone would prefer not to be quoted, PM me and I'll leave it out of the article. Cheers again!

Do u have to put the quote in about Mary Harney dancing around in a bikini. Its a cheap and easy shot and laughing at someone figure really has nothing to do with sex selling.

Personally I feel sorry for the the generations behind us. I feel lucky that I grew up in a world where sex wasnt everywhere and hunkydorys/perfume/music etc sold because they were good not because of sleazy advertising. When I was growing up we had the spice girls and the raciest video on mtv was timmy mallets' itsybitsyteenieweenie yellow polka dot bikini'. These days Girls aloud,pussycat dolls all sell their music by gyrating in suspenders allsweat and sulty poses. I dont know what sort of message this is sending out to the young girls who buy their music but It cant be a good one.

There was a really good artticle in the daily mail three weeks ago about how beautiful Irish models are made dress up like prostitutes to flog everything from razors to choclate.Shame on the evening herald,Irish independent and Sunday Independent for printing the pictures of these cheap,degrading publicity stunts.

GuffFromSwine

panda100 wrote:

Do u have to put the quote in about Mary Harney dancing around in a bikini. Its a cheap and easy shot and laughing at someone figure really has nothing to do with sex selling.

IMO Citing the fact that you would'nt use a model who didnt have a traditionally attractive figure to try and sell something is a good example of how integral sex is to selling many products.Sorry if the reference was a little too oblique...or maybe i've just hit a nerve...you would'nt happen to be president of young Mary's fan club or anything now would you?;)

Leave it in by all means