Sadly, Still Sex-nifigant
The other day I stumbled upon an article that UnderConsideration had a link to on the Quipsologies page. The article raised a point that I don't think we pay attention to anymore, not because we don't care but because it's such a ubiquitous truth that there is no reason to raise it: sex still sells. The article appears to have been written in response to public outrage at a certain Calvin Kline billboard with what appears to be an orgy about to happen. The public was outraged that such advertising could exist, that there were no filters or oversight to prevent such a travesty from happening.
But then the article makes the real point: this has been going on for ages.
Should we be outraged at the continuing process? Should we even be surprised to see such explicit imagery being used in advertising? The problem, it seems, is really the double standard we set for ourselves. When companies like Abercrombie only receive passing criticisms for their use of explicit imagery. Society declares it's outrage, screams that it shall not tolerate treating people as objects, and raises it's voice against those who would perpetuate such indecency to our children! Then it sits down calmly, plunks the credit card onto the counter and pays for the pair of jeans and t-shirt it just bought.
What's truly outrageous is that it's been happening for a very long time. The article goes into some depth by pulling examples from the last several decades to make the point. It's not new, and outrage at "new" or more "outlandish" examples betrays the fact that we continue to let it happen, period. As a member of the design community, I understand that it's a more complicated issue than it looks like at a glance. It's more than just trying to associate a product and good feelings, it's about trying to sell a lifestyle. That lifestyle exists, and our society embraces it. We look to the news for drama and scandal. As a society we revel to watch Jon and Kate break apart their marriage vows. We applaud (and almost anticipate) politicians who are crucified to marital unfaithfulness. As a society we don't marry as often, we have more partners on average than ever, and our sexuality is at the forefront of so many major issues. The advertising we complain about isn't causing this, it's the mirror pointing back to us.
And that's really what it's all about. We can't keep blaming ads for ruining our society. We can't keep saying that the ads make us stumble or that the drama makes us weaker. Those are only reflections of the things we already wallow in. Yes, ending the use of explicit imagery in advertising would be great. Praise, hallelujah! But the real change comes from our society, and the ads will reflect that change, should it ever happen.
Jet Blue’s awesome new ads
If you haven't seen them, JetBlue is currently hosting a series of ads online that take a humorous slant on the economic downturn. The difference between these ads and a lot of the others is the approach. Rather than using the frightening-oh-my-gosh-the-world-is-ending approach to advertising after the downturn, they've decided to poke fun at it while making a really memorable and humorous statement about the quality of their services. Here is the first of three ads:
Yes, I’d like pizza. Now back to the show.
Advertisers have had an increasingly difficult time reaching their target audience since the advent of DVR. Because users have the ability to record their favorite shows onto some disk media, they also have the ability to fast-forward through commercials. Ever since the dawn of man, we've been subjected to advertisers selling us products for thirty seconds up to around five minutes at a time. It seemed at first like we could escape those pesky ads when television went online, alas we find ourselves assailed even there. (Strangely, it appears more effective to have commercials paired with online vs. live content, coincidence? No, DVR destruction!)
Then, in a stroke of brilliance, years ago, DVR saved us from that awful fiend "the television commercial". It breathed it's last, kicking and screaming but slowly fading into the abyss.
Or so we thought.
Instead, advertisers adapted. In 2000, Pizza Hut went down under and broke a deal with iTV to create interactive commercials for Aussie users. At the press of a button, iTV owners could order a Big New Yorker and then the ad would disappear. (I'm sure that it was advertised during Weeds, That 70's Show, and FX Aussie's rebroadcast of Half Baked) Fast-forward to '08 and you'll find that LA's women's basketball team (The Los Angeles Sparks) used this method to get brochures out. And apparently it works. 43% of those who receive the ads don't just tolerate them, they actually look forward to them.
Why is this happening?
First, 38 million Americans used this method to subscribe to digital cable, the only 2-way medium that would allow for users to respond to the ads. Unlike web ads, television "call to action"s required the end-user to get their butt up off the couch, march down to the store (or perhaps over to the phone) and place an order. Now, they can sit comfortably on the couch and at the press of a button, ¡presto! they have a Big New Yorker at the door.
Second, and most importantly, there are over 112 million cable users total. You may or may not have heard (I hear it all Sunday while I'm trying to watch football) that all broadcasts are switching over to digital. That means those basic users are going to have to upgrade, bringing the pool of users up almost four-fold. (1 out of 3 Americans!)
And if you think it's just a fad, don't blink. The Sparks and Pizza Hut aren't the only ones who've caught on. Nike's doing it. Disney's doing it. Bertolli is doing it. So why can't we do it?
It's a question advertisers should be asking their clients.