Inappropriately suggestive is funny when it makes sense, and is relevant to the product.

But this is Tums antacid they’re selling, not condoms or 4-hour-erection Cialis. The production values for the spots are top notch, so Grey (Worldwide) obviously spent some bucks making them. But what does phallic food and orally fixated grandmas have to do with heartburn?

Eew.

In my opinion, these spots are not funny, but creepy — and not in a good way.

What the heck was Grey thinking in creating these spots? And more importantly, how could their client, Tums/GlaxoSmithKline, have approved them? What went wrong in the process for ads like these to get made? Or could the client possibly be that naïve and blind?

- – -

Thanks to Tan Le for this guest post. Find Tan on Facebook.

You’ve heard it a million times. So many times it’s gotta be true, right?

Hell, even the Devil himself says it’s true in our second of seven Responsible Marketing web shorts, here:

View on YouTube in HD

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.

I couldn’t agree more, but what do you think?

Subscribe to this feed.

Can you explain why ANYONE (let alone Burger King) would think it a good idea to adapt “I like Big Butts” to market a children’s meal?

Here’s the ad in question:

Extended version

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.

Hamilton Nolan at Gawker.com puts it this way:

The point is Sir Mix-a-Lot is teaching obesity and sexuality to your kids and you’re really okay with that, deep down, because you love Whoppers.

Is this ad message responsible?

I don’t think so.

But what’s your take?

Subscribe to this feed.

And away we go:

Virgin Atlantic 25th anniversary ad

Virgin Atlantic’s 25th Anniversary ad, 25 Years, Still Red Hot has been getting a lot of attention lately, but positive and negative.

Some think it’s sexist, others don’t.

Some ad creatives love it, while others hate it.

You be the judge.

Virgin America sells carbon offsets from seatbacks

That’s right. Now you can buy carbon offsets from the in-flight entertainment system in the seatbacks on your Virgin Atlantic flight.

Guilt-free flying. How cool is that?

Busty Virgin Mary models cause outrage in Chile

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.

Subscribe to this feed.

Happy New Year!

I know. I’ve ranted about lists before, but to start off 2009, one of my resolutions is to lighten up (a little) about lists.

Here’s a list of 10 of my favorite lists from last year, in no particular order:

Have a few of your own faves? Share ‘em below.

Subscribe to this feed.

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?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

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.

But has their use of nudity gone too far?

What do you think?

Comment below to weigh in.

Subscribe to this feed.

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.

But since the medium is the message, it’s clear this form of advertising isn’t for every company.

But in your opinion, should it be for any company?

What types of businesses is this best suited for?

Worst suited for?

Comment below to share.

Subscribe to this feed.

For the uninitiated:

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?

Comment below to weigh in.

Source: Interview on 3 Minute Ad Age.

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?

Comment below to weigh in.