This ad is promoting their Playstation 3 console which features a man and a woman in their bed, with a  character from a game that has come to life.  Now this ad confused me a little because it is unclear as to what the man is doing.  I could not decifer whether or not he is trying to get the creature off of his girlfriend or if he is trying to help him.  I would hope that he is trying to get the creature off of his girlfriend to help her but knowing the ad industry I would assume this is not the case.

The way that the image of the woman is portrayed is once again, in a negative way.  It makes the woman look helpless and weak.  I’m not sure if this ad is crossing the line with the issue of rape or what they are trying to portray here.  As a whole, it disappoints me how a respectable company such as Sony, would put out an ad like this one.

We have seen how the ad business uses all types of ways to get their products and brand exposed to the public in sexual and controversial ways.  This scheme is not only for the fashion industry, as we can it is used in all types of ways.  The idea that sex sells and shock will get your brand advertised is an issue that needs to be handed but I don’t see any limitations in the near future.  It can be said that this business is only on the rise and will continue to shock us and offend us because this is how we remember things.  We not be willing to purchase their product, but we will remember their ads.  Today, controversy is the only way to promote a product.

One of the reasons that this ad caught my eye was due to the fact that it was not about fashion, or racy nude models.  It is a different controversial ad with an unnecessary scene portrayed.  The advertisement is for Sony’s PSP which had only come in black originally but now they are advertising that it will be available in white as well.  I have a few issues with this ad and it annoys me that a huge company like Sony would display such a racist ad in the streets of a big city.  To me, this is an unintelligent way to market a new product especially to kids because they are the prime consumers of a product like this.  It is disappointing to see how far we have come as a country on the issue of racism and still have things like this that are just wrong to have.

One of my first problems with this is the title .. White is coming? As in they are coming and taking over the blacks.  As soon as I saw this ad  I automatically thought of the slave movement in our history and wondering why would anyone think that this is a clever marketing scheme?  It is offensive and we have moved past this in our society.  The ad is saying how the old, black version of the PSP is being taken over by the white one just as the whites took power over the slaves during the slave movement. The body positioning of the people is all wrong which makes this think of slavery as well.  This woman is holding control over this black man in a fearful and powerful way.  The white woman is also so much more obvious to see as she is dressed in stark white whereas, the the black person is barely visible because of the background and black clothing.  It is as if they were trying to make the black man invisible to the eye.

The biggest problem that I have with this ad is that PSP is a game and entertainment console that is primarily used by children.  Children of all ages use this product and this is definitely the wrong type of advertisements to use for children.  As soon as a child sees an ad for a new PSP they will be drawn to it automatically.  Is this racist message the one we want to send out to kids?  In a time where we have come so far from slavery and discrimination of blacks, this seems very politically incorrect.  We are moving forward against discrimination and an ad like this one only dates back our society.  This type of message is not needed in the promotion of a new game console, especially in a huge billboard for all to see.  When will advertisements stop going in reverse as far as how far our country has come on controversial issues?

So D&G has most recently put out a commercial for TV promoting their new line of watches for men and women.  I don’t know about you but when I watched this I had no idea what they were advertising until the end of the commercial.  The commercial features a fairly young girl with a guy and then another guy comes along and gets in on the action.  I remember watching TV and seeing this commercial come on and being completely shocked that this was on TV.  I know after doing all of this research on different types of ads I shouldn’t be surprised by anything that I see but why is this on TV?  Threesomes seem to be a very popular trend in advertising and my guess is that this trend will only continue.

I guess that the only reason that the APA would ban a commercial is if there is nudity but I think that the subject matter plays a large role in this.  Just because there is no nudity in a commercial, I don’t think that this should be the only grounds for allowing commercials to be shown.  If anything TV is much more accessible than billboards because everyone can see them in their homes at any time.

It is completely unclear what this commercial is advertising until the end of the video.  There is no distinction in what exactly they are promoting in the video because I first thought they were advertising cologne or perfume only because that is usually shown in a sexual way.  There is a wrong message that is being shown to the general public with no logical reasoning backing it.  There is no need to have a threesome when you are trying to display a new line of watches.  I think that ads and videos like this take the focus off the product because consumers don’t know what is being advertised and they are just drawn to the shocking nature of the commercial.  Not only have ads taken over magazines, and billboards; they are also taking over our televisions where we cannot ignore this.

When I came across this ad campaign it completely discussed me because of how shocking and unnecessary it is.  There is no point or logic behind why these criminals are almost glorified in a sense by putting them in these ads.  The message behind this is all wrong and should not have been put out for the public.  Ads generally features celebrities and people that you want to look like or have some admiration towards.  It may not have been the message that they were trying to get across but by putting these people in their ads gives off a bad vibe.  I know that if I were the families of the victims in these cases I would feel very disrespected by this.  I cannot find any reasoning for why this would be part of an campaign because if someone was unaware of this clothing brand, they would never know what this brand was about or what they sold.  This definitely crosses the line and these ads should have been banned simply in respect to the families.  This could be a personal issue for the families and these ads were featured on billboards in cities.  I would not want to see the person that murder a family member of mine in any type of advertisement.  Using murders to promote their products is simply unacceptable and does not make sense.  The company is trying to make a statement about the death penalty but why is this related to advertisements in clothing?

I really have a strong hatred for these ads and actually hit me because of how hurtful these ads could be to people.  I have never seen ads like this especially in the promotion of clothing and I do not understand the logic.  Whether or not they are trying to teach the youth about the death penalty, I think that people are confused by the message and are offended by seeing these criminal faces.  Another problem that I have with this is that did the prisons know the true intention of the brand in this case?  And if they did how could they have allowed them to come in and take photographs of prisoners in jail and allow them to publish these 16 ads?  The whole process just seems wrong.

In the video, it is obvious of the nipple showing but the brand states that this is an international commercial, and that it was not just intended for the United States.  While our country is very conservative about nudity in some aspects, in Europe the feeling is not the same.  Nudity in media is much more accepted and is not as negatively viewed as it is in America.  After this commercial came out in America it was banned shortly after because of the nudity but it is still broadcasted in Europe and can still be found on the internet uncensored.  In the news coverage by O’Reilly they compared this to the Superbowl incident years ago with Janet Jackson.  I found it interesting how they fined Janet Jackson but the Supreme Court never made her actually pay the fee.  If the government is going to fine someone for this, they should follow through with this otherwise what is the point.

My question about this commercial is that if brands know that nudity is strictly not publicized on TV why even bother putting this in a commercial for the United States?  I also realized that this is exactly the point of the brand doing this.  If it weren’t for this racy ad, broadcasters would not be talking about it and I would probably not be blogging about this issue.  The goal for the company is to get attention which will have people talking about the commercial.  Not many provocative things get banned in our country and this made headlines because of the nudity.  This is what drives companies to put things like this in ads and commercials.  If it weren’t for the nudity in this commercial, no one would pay attention to it because it’s just another ad for perfume.

When I first saw this ad I couldn’t believe what was going on, as I’m sure you would think too.  The ad doesn’t leave any question as to what is going on because it is so plainly put right in front of you.  It has all of the components for being a controversial ad because of the nudity, the use of what appears to be drugs, and even with the use of the word junkie.  Once you realize what is going on in the ad you wonder if this is something you want to be looking at.  In my opinion, this is just too much for an advertisement for a clothing brand.

As I have said in other blogs posted, what is the purpose of this ad?  Why is it necessary to stoop down to this level for advertising?  The purpose for companies is of course to have the most shocking, ridiculous ad that makes you notice it but to what extent?  The only thing that this ad leaves me to think is that I have no interest in buying what is featured in this ad.  The only thing you notice is the drug use, not the clothes being advertised.  The caption “Fashion Junkie” under the brand implies that these girls are addicted to fashion which is fine but the fact that there is an implication of drug use crosses the line.  If they want to advertise that these girls are addicted to Sisley, why not just have them shopping with lots of clothes or something similar to that idea?

The drug reference is a whole other issue on its own.  The idea that these girls are snorting cocaine but are really addicted to fashion is something advertisers probably think is very clever however, it is just too much for an ad in my opinion.  The whole idea of the ad is not something that you want out there.  In a way, it could be seen that they are promoting drug use.  Another thing that I thought of was that models who use cocaine is so common in the fashion industry and this ad puts models in a bad light.  When we think of a model now a days, you wonder how they could possibly be so skinny and it’s not uncommon to see models in the news for using drugs to stay thin.  This ad would only confirm what we think about them.  It is generalizing models in our eyes that they all do use drugs.  This ad just crosses the line in my opinion and proves there are no boundaries for advertising, especially in the fashion industry.  Advertising is no longer about marketing your new spring collection, but who can have the most eye catching ad.  The only thing ads are about anymore is whether or not they shocked you and that’s how you remember an ad.  But is this trend for controversial ads becoming a serious issue that needs to be under better censorship or is this the only way to advertise anymore?  Are we moving towards a generation where all ads like this one is just the norm?

As you can see on the left, the model looks thin but a healthy and normal size.  The image on the right is completely distorted.  My question is who thought that this looked good?  Whoever was in charge of the editing can’t possibly think that this is flattering.  If someone saw this ad, would anyone think that they wanted to look like this?  This ad just sends a negative message to girls.  I don’t think that this is something that we want young girls thinking is okay.  To be thin is one thing, but to look sickly is another.  Our culture has become so obsessed with being thin and when people see an ad like this it only enforces that thinking.

The evolution of advertising throughout our history is something that I find so interesting.  In our past history, the  ideal woman was supposed to be curvy and have a true woman’s figure but now it has become the norm for women to look stick skinny.  To me though, this ad does not make the model look attractive or flattering at all.  The image that designers and advertisers have put out there are completely incorrect.  Women should be encouraged to be a healthy weight for themselves, not stick skinny to the point where you look sick.

Having an ad like this is damaging to the model and to the way girls think about their own bodies.  What I think is worse is that this  model was fired because she was believed to be overweight.  This is simply untrue if you were to look at any other of Hamilton’s numerous ads for Ralph Lauren.  By firing a healthy looking model like this one, it simply puts out there that she wasn’t good enough for this brand.  Which distorts people’s perception  of what is acceptable and what isn’t.  The modeling industry has told us for quite some time now that super skinny is beautiful however, when do we draw the line at what is too skinny?  It might be obvious to many that the line has definitely been crossed with this ad however, there might actually be some girls out there who think this is what they are supposed to look like.  In my opinion, I would rather see models who are more relatable to what most girls today look like.  Having girls see ads like this and think that this is okay is something that our society has been raised on.  Something has to be done to ensure that young girls are not trying to look like what they see.

An ad like this just looks like a photoshopper playing around on their computer, but who decided that they would publish this?  The fashion industry sets the guidelines for trends whether you can afford high fashion designers or not.  These designers set the ideas of what people are eventually going to conform to so to say that this editing was a mistake is not something I necessary agree with.  I think that the person who edited this image knew what they were doing and as a designer you have a certain image that you want to portray with the model who advertises your clothing.  Ads like these are difficult to understand because aspiring models should have strong , healthy models to look up to but when all young girls see are unhealthy models it gives them the wrong idea.  Shouldn’t we encourage models to look healthy if we want to help young aspiring models?

I was doing some research for some controversial ads and came across this one.  I recall seeing this billboard when I was in NYC and I remember wondering if they could put an ad like this up.  Not only was this ad displayed in the the middle of Times Square, but it was also featured on TV.  Now of course a billboard like this is eye catching, but it’s very suggestive as well.  This was an ad that the network the CW put out with a series of other ads to advertise for a new season of Gossip Girl.  This was the most shocking ad I saw from the series.  There are a number of issues that come to mind when I see this ad.

One of the issues is that this billboard is huge and it is in the very popular Times Square.  Times Square is probably one of the busiest parts of NYC where there are tourists and just a lot of action going on all of the time.  So in the eyes of the network, this is the perfect place to display a new ad campaign to advertise for the upcoming season.  But to the average, everyday person this ad could make the city have a very negative effect on people, mainly adults with children.  I thought of putting myself in the shoes of a tourist that has never been to New York before and then seeing a huge billboard like this right in plain sight for all to see.  The city can be known for having a wild side but is this something that we want displayed in a heavy populated area with children around?  Some tourists might be turned off by the city, wondering why such a racy ad like this one is allowed to be publicly displayed in the streets.

This ad also brings about an issue with parents and their children.  Gossip Girl is a very popular show among tweens, teens and young adults.  Parents may know that their child watches a show called Gossip Girl but they may not be aware of what the show is about or what the content is.  If they were to see this billboard they would be very apprehensive to whether or not they would let their child watch this show.  By seeing this ad you would automatically know that there would be some sort of sex scene in this season of the show.

This show is also filmed in New York City and is about high school students who attend a private school on the Upper East Side.  Parents who live in this area of Manhattan may wonder if this is what is going on in the school that they send their child to.  While it is just a TV show, the writers have to base some of the issues off of real life events.  I’m sure if a parent saw this they would be very curious to know what was going on at school with their children and wonder if TV is having an influence on them.

The text phrase that is on the billboard is a cause for concern as well.  If you were to ask any teen what “OMFG” means they will be able to tell you in a second.  If a parent saw that they would probably have no clue what that means.  The whole ad is very controversial in itself.  For an ad that is directed towards teens, it is very racy and a bit sleazy.  Which leaves me to wonder why is this necessary?  Why is the only way that we can attract teens to watch a show is through sexual imagery?  Teens are exposed to so much sex through TV, the internet, movies and even public billboards.  Shouldn’t we be discouraging young teens from viewing graphic things like this, rather than promoting it?

This advertisement is not something that should be publicized around the streets of Manhattan where all of the public can see especially of this magnitude.  If a company wants to sport a new ad as racy as this, put it in a magazine where it is at your own risk that you would see provocative ads like this one.  This kind of ad leaves nothing for the imagination because it is so plainly put right before your eyes.  There doesn’t seem to be much censorship anymore when it comes to what you can advertise. 

Another issue with this billboard is that I personally have no clue what it is that they are trying to advertise here.  Yes, it does say Calvin Klein Jeans and yes the models are wearing denim but a very little amount.  I mean the clothes that they are wearing look old, ragged and dirty.  The only message that I would get from seeing this ad would be that they sell old looking, ragged and dirty denim.  As a consumer, I don’t think that I would be very interested in buying these clothes simply because nothing stands out about these jeans compared to the rest of the jeans out there.  The first impression that you would get from this billboard wouldn’t be how nice their jeans are, but instead complete shock that there is an orgy going on right in the streets of NYC. 

It’s clear that the brand is trying to attract the youth with this risque billboard but is this the only way to get attention?  It seems that the new trend in advertising is which designer can put out the most sexy and controversial ads.  There is no decency anymore when it comes to trying to promote a new line or product.  What has our society come to that the only way to attract people is to put nearly naked models up on a billboard and say that they are trying to advertise a new pair of denim?  Lately, it seems that the product that is trying to be sold is not the main attraction in ads, it has shifted to whose ad catches the most attention.  To me, it looks as if the industry of advertising is completely shifting to cross the line of what is way too provocative to be put in the public eye.  How can we expect the youth to respect themselves when all they have to do is walk down the block and see an ad like this?

The CEO of American Apparel, Dov Charney is all in favor of having controversial ads mainly due to the fact that sex sells, but also controversy around his ads sells more.  His ads are directed to young consumers mainly which are attracted to sex.  There are numerous ads of his that show topless women in sexual positions with suggestive comments in the ad.  I understand that their website can feature whatever ads they would like and someone decides whether or not they are going to go to that site.  But why is there no limits on what is displayed in the streets of a major city?  Of course they need to advertise their products but I don’t see the need to exposing adults and young children to this type of advertising.

 The graffiti tag brings out a completely new issue which many would consider offensive and too over the top.  When I first saw this ad I remember being completely shocked because of how degrading it is to women.  These ads get a lot of attention for being risque but at the same time if I were Dov Charney I wouldn’t want to see my ads vandalized with negative comments on them.  Not everyone is attracted to ads like these and might even be discouraged from purchasing anything from this company solely based on the fact that women are being put out there negatively.  Yes sex sells, but where do you draw the line?