@hearkat The manipulation and deception that go into marketing annoys me. It is one of the reason why I avoid media that use advertising.
How is this ad deception? It is not like a bait-and-switch. There is curiously very little that can be seen as being sold. If the ad was in a language other than you read, unless you are familiar with YSL you’d have no clue as to what was being sold; since you don’t know what is being sold, how can one be deceived?
@sinscriven The nudity on the YSL ad serves a pupose. It’s communicating an emotion, a sensation that it’s trying to tie into it’s product. It is bare, luscious, seductive, sensual—all qualities they want to convince you to feel when you consider that fragrance. “You too (person reading Glamour) can at least feel this decadent rolling around in velvet when wearing Opium”.
I never really looked at it THAT WAY, thank you for that input, it was the type of input I wanted to hear about. But as stated by @hearkat, she would have rather just seen it be about the product, with a bottle and maybe the ghost of a woman in the background, I don’t know, but less about what emotion or conveying of such that comes from the exotic imagery. There have been ads from Abercrombie & Fitch, and American Apparel that had fully clothed women but were seen as more sexually exploitive.
Why do women have to constantly be victimized when it comes to anything sex? That feels awfully sex-negative and denigrating to women to say they can’t use their sexuality as they see fit.
That might be a future question, because I can’t tell you. It seem the more it is done, the more women are made victims because they are put there. I can’t fathom a reason in today’s society where a woman can exercise her sexuality and boink someone she met at a club, dance, wedding, bar, etc. hours earlier, or even live long-term with a man not her husband but become a victim by media if said media shows her in any sexy or sensual way.
@chyna Didn’t you just ask this but with a different perfume?
No, different question; that one I wondered why they (the manufacture) of the perfume chose to use the perfume bottle covering the privates of a woman in a woman’s magazine, especially when they could have shown the perfume bottle by a wrist or hand, where on usually use perfume. That made me think, if no one thinks an ad like that would be exploitive of women would the same be thought if one replaces the bottle and places a hammer drill there in a men’s tool magazine. That is the track of this question, would the same ad, with a male centered product in a men’s magazine be seen as more obscene or less; if at all.
@GloPro Despite your inability to provide issues or facts, I can tell you that magazines most certainly consider audience.
Regardless of the fact I cannot recall which month of Glamour I seen it in, the ad exist and I am sure ran in other magazines like Redbook, Harper’s Bazaar, Vogue, etc. So, if editors know their audience why would they put a naked woman in a women’s magazine when there maybe women who would be highly offended?
It is called marketing
I understand marketing, as I said, this one was pretty slick, and even if it caused uproar it got YSL in the spotlight. It is not like people are going to boycott the brand; it is too major and too big. What I am trying to explore is if the same ad with a male-centered product being the product pushed would it be perceived different than it being perfume for women in a women’s magazine.
Composing members:
0
