Why not believe it? You just heard it from the Devil himself.
Well, because it’s all a lie.
Sex sells sex.
Sex gets attention.
And sex creates controversy.
But it seldom converts attention to action.
And most people don’t recall the brand the ad was for.
Men respond better than women to sexy ads, as expected. But in Buyology, author Martin Lindstrom shared this interesting tidbit: One study found that even for men, recall for sexually explicit ads was less than 10%, but recall was nearly twice that for the non-sexually charged ads.
Steve Hall of Adrants puts it perfectly when talking about sex in advertising call it:
. . . a lame cop-out used by marketers who lack imagination to create more compelling work that will sustain itself beyond the initial titillation.
This is one of the classic Responsible Marketing questions we talk about here. It takes real creativity to break through, and this ad is creative. But it’s also controversial, and controversy gets people talking and drives word of mouth. I’d argue this ad is almost impossible to keep to yourself.
Burger King knew exactly what they were approving: A funny, but potentially offensive ad for parents that they’d never want their young children to see.
Mission accomplished.
I am Burger King’s target:
I have small children
Sir-Mix-A-Lot song was popular when I was in college
And I laughed out loud when Mix-A-Lot himself said “Booty is booty” at the end
But the idea of my kids seeing this ad makes me cringe. The word “butt” is off limits in my house (my kids are age six and four), and the sexual references are everywhere.
Fashion designer Ricardo Oyarzun’s use of nearly-nude models for a fashion show in Chile have raised eyebrows by “dressing up models like the Virgin Mary — in some cases with ample, near-naked breasts.”
Image: REUTERS/Rodrigo Nunez
Comments are welcome on any or all of the topics above.
Trendhunter did my homework for me today and compiled a four minute collection of shocking ads that will leave you asking the question, “How far is too far?”
You won’t want to view this in front of small children or your boss. It features fake lesbians, phony murder scenes, employees getting punched in the face in slo-mo and some naughty videos that speak for themselves.
As advertisers get more desperate to break through, shockvertisers are getting more extreme on every level.
Some of these campaigns have resulted in complaints, injury and legal action. Others have alienated a significant proportion of the audience they were trying to reach.
All that said, shockvertising does something safe marketing seldom can: It breaks through, drives word of mouth, and often goes viral.
So, is shockvertising is Responsible Marketing or not?
Whether you support their cause or not, it’s impossible to ignore PETA.
Their undercover investigations and campaigns are orchestrated across all media—advertising, PR, events, and social media are all a part of the mix—and most are integrated quite well.
The way they get attention is always controversial, and they’ve taken on some of the titans of industry, including McDonalds, Ralph Lauren, Coca-Cola, Petco, Pilgrum’s Pride, General Motors, Tyson and others. I wrote about their Kentucky Fried Cruelty campaign in February.
One of PETA’s enduring campaigns, The Naked Truth, features nude models, celebrities and athletes often with the headline, “I’d rather go naked than wear fur.” It works because the headline and image work so powerfully together—and because the images and associated controversy creates buzz.
PETA learned sex sells and now uses nudity in most of their campaigns, even the ones not related to fur. Nudity appears to be a PETA branding element. It’s a theme used across all mediums, documented in the PETA Files naked archives.
A recent campaign encourages going vegan, and features Alicia Silverstone. You’ll notice there doesn’t appear to be any connection between what’s said and the fact she’s nude.
Here’s the ad:
And the video:
Love ‘em or hate ‘em, PETA’s undercover reporting and controversial tactics work.
As marketers, we’re always looking for creative ways to break through.
Biker Babe Marketing is doing just that by putting babes on Harleys, then having them drive around with their client’s ads on signs attached to their bikes.
Hey, sex sells and this surely has people talking.
OMG = “Oh my God.”
OMFG = The same, plus a strategically placed F-bomb.
First time I saw these ads, I wanted to write about it here, but I couldn’t seem to find the CW’s justification for taking “OMG,”—a phrase that already puts some people on edge—and plusing it with the “F” for extra shock appeal.
Personally, I grew up in a household where “Oh my gosh” would raise eyebrows because it was so close to “Oh my God,” which takes the Lord’s name in vain. Readers of this blog know I’m no Saint: I used the word “sh**” in a post just last week — and have posted some risque videos. But the fact is, I’m hardwired by my upbringing.
Anyway, I assumed it was to shock the viewer into paying attention—to break through the clutter by slipping something naughty past the FCC. I also assumed it was a calculated move to gain secondary attention from the media—that the CW knew full well this would create the kind of controversy that gets people talking.
As it turns out, I was 2/3 right.
Last week’s Promax/BDA CMO Summit featured a panel that included the CW’s CMO Rick Haskin. He was asked point blank about the ads, and agreed they were meant to break through and was pleased with the additional attention the controversy created.
Knowing only this much, you might want to call the CW and their tactic irresponsible.
But wait, there’s more.
Haskin claims that the CW really listened to their viewers, and discovered that the OMFG phrase was one of the phrases most commonly used to describe the show—that their messages would start, “OMFG…”
Listening to your customers and speaking to them in their own voice makes the conversation more authentic and is indeed Responsible Marketing.
I’m just not sure if this is brilliant marketing—or brilliant spin-doctoring.
But what do you think? Was the CW responsible or not?
I am one of the few people that saw the very first video on MTV, “Video Killed the Radio Star.” I loved the channel, and I’d watch Mark Goodman and Nena Blackwood for hours on end.
I’m still a big music fan (I love last.fm), but I have to admit, I stopped watching MTV when they quit showing music videos around the clock. I guess I’m a a little out of touch: When I mention a band or current artist at the office, the twenty-somethings laugh at me.
Sniff sniff.
I’m not totally out of touch, but I will say these two public service announcements from MTV’s Staying Alive Foundation caught me off guard.
The first one is pretty funny. The second one is shocking. I wouldn’t play either one in the office or around children.
This ad I’d rate PG13 for Discovery Channel-like animal sex:
The following ad is definitely Rated R for sex and violence:
Made you uncomfortable? I bet.
But Gen Y needs to be entertained or shocked into paying attention, and this is a serious topic: Have unprotected sex and you could die.
So what do you think, Responsible Marketer, has MTV gone to far with the first video? The second? Both?
I’ve mentioned Dove’s Campaign for Real Beauty that encourages self esteem for young girls. It’s smart, it zags when everyone else is zigging, and as the father of young daughter it makes me want to stand up and cheer.
But of course, Responsible Marketing is never black and white.
Dove’s parent company, Unilever, has been taking a beating on the public relations front by Greenpeace and a host of other activist groups for buying from companies that are harvesting Indonesian rain forests to extract palm oil.
Greenpeace took inspiration from Dove’s Real Beauty campaign, creating new viral videos to deliver their message.
Here’s Dove’s “Onslaught” ad:
And here’s the Greenpeace ad, Dove Onslaught(er):
But this story has a happier ending than you might think. Love or hate Greenpeace, their methods are effective, and on May 1, Unilever CEO Patrick Cescau announced a move to certified sustainable palm oil.
Here’s an excerpt from Cescau’s speech at the Prince of Wales’ May Day Climate Change Summit in London:
Palm oil is an important raw material for us and the whole consumer goods industry. We use a substantial amount of palm oil and we want to be an agent for positive change, as we have been in fish, tea and other areas.
We started work on sustainable palm oil ten years ago by developing and sharing our own guidelines and good practices with growers and suppliers, leading to the setting up of the Roundtable on Sustainable Palm Oil in 2004. Through the RSPO, we have continued to work hard to build an industry consensus on criteria for sustainable palm cultivation.
Now we need to take the next step. Suppliers need to move to meet the criteria, by getting certified both the palm oil from their own plantations and the palm oil they buy from elsewhere. We also intend to support the call for an immediate moratorium on any further deforestation for palm oil in Indonesia.
We are committed to doing this because we believe it is the right thing to do for the people who use our products, for the environment and communities in and around which palm oil is grown and for our business and our brands.
Unilever has gained accolades for sustainability and responsible business practices in other areas, but as the world’s largest customer for palm oil, they done considerable damage to-date.
I have two questions:
1. Do you consider Greenpeace’s tactics on this campaign responsible?
2. Is Unilever responsible or not?
Comment below to weigh in.
. . .
Inspiration for this post came from Jeff on OurWorld. Thanks, Jeff.
