Provocative Advertising

You all did great last week. This week it's an open discussion on Provocative Advertising. Which adverts do you find provocative? What is and isn't acceptable? Well, anything you want to say really.... If possible put links to adverts that you mention in case not everyone (me) is unaware of them. You can reply to other people's posts.

Fait fox!

Mean "fair" fox!

I will talk about two advertisings that I judge provocative and unacceptable :
- Dolce & Gabbana in 2007,
- Calvin Klein in 2010.
Both clothing brands want to promote their products by staging a sexual assault, like you can see below :





The woman is lying and surrounded by several men more or less naked. She's clearly in a submissive position and this demeans the perception of woman in society. She's considered like the weaker sex, and it's unaccpetable in perspective of sex equality.

These boths advertisings prohibited in worldwilde because they created controversy.The IAP (Institut d'Autodiscipline Publicitaire) estimated that advertisings "offended the dignity of women, in the sense that the female figure is represented in a humiliating way. The woman absent look", she's "immobilized and submitted to the will of a man".

Risks are that young people, who is main target of these two brands, thinks that these scenes are reality. it looks like a collective rape.

I want to talk about a last denim campaign of Alexander Wang ; designer and director at Balenciaga, i juge the campaign provacatively and i find it unaceptable because it presents not only a naked woman but one who appears to be touching herself. Those jeans should make us want to take off our clothes and touch ourselves?!!!!
Another cheap attempt at using the female body to sell a product than anything else.




In my opinion nudity isn't necessary in advertisement, nor does it send any type of message to the consumer other than the notion that some brands believes the best way to get people talking about their products is by selling a woman's body.
I want to say clothing is cool enough on the models, you don't need to take it off of them to make money.

I would like to talk about the using of women in ... almost all the advertisings! All we know that the woman was the subject of much persecutions in the past, where they were subjected to men. Today, we speak of the modern woman, a free woman, active, and respected. Respected? This is not always the case. The proof in pictures!




But why to use the woman as the queen of vulgarity? For me it is totally disrespectful and it distorts the current image of women. But what Tom Ford does he identifies although its fragrance from Tom Ford Men? A provocative advertising, but what sells! The example of Panthène really made me laugh. This is an advertisement for shampoo, for hair, and therefore... however, her chest it’s more evident as her hair! And it works, unfortunately... I disagree of using that certain communication experts, do of the woman. Sometimes the advertising it’s not for everyone, we must think of the children who can see that! It permitted to understand better why the new generation is deteriorating; why there was such stereotypes and prejudices. While advertising is not the unique responsible. The image that we have of the modern woman is horrible. Yet, some ads, such as Tampax, provoked but remain correct, but mostly they used an off the wall humorous and tone.

I would like to talk about cosmetics ads.

There are a lot of polemics regarding cosmetics ads because models are not natural, photos are excessively modified by software like Photoshop. Some ads were banished in the United Kingdom because of that like Gemey Maybelline “Instant Age Rewind”, L’Oréal “revitalift” or Lancôme “teint miracle”. The British regulation authority of advertising told that these ads were exaggerating the effects of the product, and that it was considered as misleading ads.  Regarding France, the regulation authority of advertising doesn’t want to banish these ads, they justify themselves by saying that French women are not naïve and that they know about modification of the skin to make the model perfect.

In my opinion, these ads create and maintain the cult of the perfect body. They give a wrong image of real measurements of women bodies. A law could be established in the following years to mention on the ads: “picture modified in order to change the physical appearance of a person”. I think that it could be a great idea because this type of ads produce effects on women that cause health problems (physical or mental).

Sometimes, provocative ads are used only in order to make profit. I’ve read the comments above mine and I was very shocked when I discovered the ads Salma and Flora talked about. In my opinion, women shouldn’t be used like this by brands. Provocation can be funny but it’s too much when pictures are showing a woman touching herself for example.

However, in some cases, being provocative in ads can make a mark in everyone’s mind for a good cause. For example, the “Lung Cancer Alliance” released a provocative ad campaign (you can see 2 posters below). This non-profit association wanted people to feel concerned and very conscious of the following reality: nobody deserves to die because “he brought the disease upon himself”. This campaign has been successful, knowing that a lot of people went to the website NoOneDeservesToDie.org, whether they liked or disliked the posters and messages.





To conclude, I think that provocative ads can be a good or a bad thing, depending on the message we want to deliver, and the means we use in order to do it.

Today, to stand out from competitors and attract the attention of the client, we must redouble our efforts at communication to reach the desired target. Provocation in advertising has become a way of increasingly used, and, create daring advertisements is the new challenge for advertiser.

Why shock ? Use provocation increases the recall rate of its brand, get a modern image and increase brand notoriety. Deciding to make a provocative advertising is choosing a new communication strategy. . The goal is to send a very strong and direct message to interpellate its target. But provoke is also choosing a new positioning. This is a real choice that the company does, and it must assume all the way.
To shock, there are different themes used, such as gender, religion, politics. These are sensitive topics, which are often controversial in society. That’s why, to use them in advetissement for shock is daring but also very risky. Create a provocative advertising is taking a risk, that of creating a scandal. But this phenomenon is becoming more widespread, then the limits are relaxed, and we accept more "provocation" in advertisements. Many brands have tested the new advertising strategy.

For example, American Apparel has controversy with his last campaign as too "sexist", so this advertising was censored (we could see the panties of a girl). But an ad that shocked me most, is the brand Benetton. Indeed, Benetton is known to be the leading brand in the provocation. Ryanair is also a brand that causes through its advertisements. In its latest ad, the brand uses its employees as sex objects. (it’s obviously only women who are used). Today, the image of women is much used to sell, and is used only as a sexy woman. I tink that there are other ways to attract attention.

Today, we are invade by advertising, and our brain retains only 5% of them. An advertisement must attract our attention, if this is not the case, it will be useless and forgotten in one minute. I think making provocative advertisements is a good advertising strategy now to stand out. The main objective is to reach its target and all means are good to reach it (within reason).
Communication is changing with the times, the market is flooded with thousands of brands, we must learn to adapt and innovate to remain competitive; it is the challenge of all advertising today.

I find the advertising on the BMW K 1200 R may seem shocking.



Today, many advertising seek to introduce children to touch consumers. However, for this advertising, there might be a bad strategic choice.

Here we see a baby with two tattoos on his knuckles: "love" and "hate", simulating the act of driving a motorcycle. On the background you can see his head with a look of biker, as if he expected a motorcycle duel.

BMW wanted to show through this publicity, that the bike was not only an activity for old people but nowadays, children are increasingly "adulted" and we see like a loss of fragility and candour.

To conclude, advertising’s trend where they try to shock more and more in order to capture consumer’s attention at the expense of images and some human’s values (see previous post). Let be more fun and creative!

I've read the other comments and I agree that in certain cases is not justified to show the nudity of a female body to sell a product. In the majority of ads there is a lack of good taste to present women in general, which seems to be the fastest way to catch people’s attention.  It’s always provocative to present a lot of skin in the advertisement business, but I think that you can also change the impression that women are objects.

What about a naked body that tells us a life story needed to be told? What about the person that is under that skin? The advertisement I‘d like to comment has of course a commercial side, but I think it’s put on a second place. This billboard is not about a conventional beauty pattern, but a real problem in society:  anorexia.



In a certain way, this shocking picture talks about a misconception of self, insecurity, low self-esteem, imposed beauty canons and, most of all, pain.

The woman in the billboard was a French model called Isabelle Caro, she was 26 years old at the time, and she had been suffering from anorexia since she was 13. The model decided to expose her body in the publicity of Italian fashion label Nolita to raise awareness about this disease.

The fragility of Caro in that poster is dramatic until now. I think that every person that was in front of this image has spoken about it, which is exactly the purpose of this ad. In my opinion, you can be more conscious of anorexia by watching this terrible image because you are able to see the results of this disease.



Her damaged body was capture for posterity by the lens of Italian photographer Oliviero Toscani -responsible of the spiciest Benetton’s ads: from HIV, racism, religion to death sentence-, and after two years of that shooting, Caro lost her battle with anorexia.

We all have in mind various examples of provocative advertising. We should ask ourselves “why?.
The answer is obvious: provocative advertising has a strong impact and it triggers reactions. Actually I do believe that it is what advertisers are looking for: they try to arouse emotion. Most of the time, they succeed in disturbing our mind. So you find provocative the advertisement on TV and would remember the brand involved in the “scandal”.
This refers to marketing and moral issues.

I’ve chosen a provocative campaign five years ago.
Once again women are involved. We all know the brand : Diesel. The campaign is called “Smart may have the brains, but stupid has the balls”







The 2 posters highlight the woman and their attributes to convey the message.
In my opinion this is a ridiculous campaign which only aims to provoke reactions…

Unfortunately for women, I’m afraid we will see more and more provocative advertisements.

To be honest, I don’t really know what exactly means “provocative advertising”. Are those ads who are filled with sex and violence or who have a strong visual impact ? I searched long time on line but I couldn’t find a exact definition, so I watched some pictures of provocative advertising, most of then are sexy, violent and even very dark.

I didn’t find provocative advertising on Chinese websites, because, in Chinese medias, the sexy and violent ads are strictly forbidden. We have a special agency, called State Administration of Press, Publication, Radio, Film and Television of The People’s Republic of China, Who supervise all kinds of medias. So the provocative advertising is not used by Chinese mainstream medias ( except underground activities), this kind of ad can’t attract consumers because it can’t exist.

So finally we have a cultural difference: in China, we forbid provocative advertising because these ads may have a misleading to the minors; but in western countries, this kind of ad has not been forbidden, merchants uses those ads to attract the attention of consumers, however, I don’t know if there are the misleadings for the western countries’ s minors. Many people said that western countries are more liberal and more open than Eastern countries, but like China, who has 1,3 billions people (300 million of minors), we need a more intensive management in dissemination of information.

I decided not to choose an ad which shocked me but one which deeply moved me.

The spot is for an association called “Noemi” and shows several couple parent/child, volunteer to play an original and educational game: imitate some grimaces projected to a screen. As the viewers, we assist to the experience as witnesses.

Grimaces pass one by one and we watch children and adults joining the game attempting to reproduce them with a mirror effect. Until we discover, on the screen, a person with a disability who is grimacing. The ad shows us with no filter the reactions: 100% of children get going the game, without questioning. What about parents? They stop and turn their eyes away…

The spot finished by these words: “Let see the difference... with the eyes of a child”.

That’s the issue raised by this spot, our gaze… Why does our gaze change when we become adult? Why do we lose this spontaneity and this ease to simply watch others?

The solution given through this ad is to see disabled people with another gaze... a child gaze that doesn’t judge but involves us to reconsider handicap question in our society.

The thing I like in this ad is that it doesn’t fall into the cliché of a hard-hitting or moralising campaign.

Here the link to watch it >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WB9UvjnYO90

I have read the comments above and I was really shocked when I saw all of these ads. Advertising agencies make ads more shocking in order to make an impression and that consumers remember them. This process allows brands to increase their notoriety and thus their business. The problem is that always degrades the image of women.
Furthermore, I find really shocking ads with tortured animals.
This is the case for all advertising campaigns denouncing buying and wearing furs. I feel really bad and sad for all those animals that are killed just to seem more stylish.

So why are the companies that make degrading adverts of women not punished - financially or criminally - is it not sexism?

I've read ads and comments above and I decided to not deal with sexist or degrading advertising.

Here is a campaign made by the M&C Saatchi agency for Transport for London in 2012. This campaign was launched in 2013 in London's tube. The road safety campaign uses a range of messages to remind teenagers to take care when using roads. The main aim is to show the consequences of being distracted on the road. A poster of a boy lying motionless on the road and clutching a mobile phone carries the catch phrase is "My friend saw the text. He didn’t see the car."

According to a TfL poll in 2013, "Nine out of ten teenagers have seen their peers using a mobile phone while crossing the road" which means a lot. That's why I think sometimes provocating advertising is useful. People need to be shocked to realise how much life is invaluable and feel concerned by these issues.  

This campaign is well polished because it touches all young people and their hobbies such as cell phones, listening to music with earphones, etc.. The first time I saw those posters in London, I didn't realise yet people were dead. But, when I craned my head on the right, then I realised it. It made me feel uncomfortable and sad about it. See how much it was real. At the time, even if I was shocked, I understood it was a good campaign and may people will be more careful about it.

Provocation should be used for good things such as roads security, paedophilia, etc.. and not for pointless thins such as fragrances, clothing, cars.

One of the most recent ads that shocked me was made by the National organization for Marriage released in 2009. I came across this ad on YouTube when I was researching Max Weber’s book “ The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” .The National organization for marriage  is a Christian group against Homosexual Marriage and compares it to the flood in the biblical story of Noah’s ark.  We see a bunch of people standing up speaking in turns warning us that something terrible is about to happen. They act like victims punished by the government. Here are some excerpts of their speeches: “They want to bring the issue into my life” “My freedom will be taken away” “I’m a Massachusetts parent helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is just ok”. Through three quarters of the ad the background is menaced by big dark clouds. But suddenly at the end of the ad Damon Owens who is the executive director of the Theology of the Body Institute comes out with hope to defend marriage. While talking in the background the light breaks through the clouds.  He even uses the word “rainbow” which refers to Noah’s goal in the bible. The purpose of this publicity is to get the viewers to join them and fight for marriage. I personally think it’s a terrifying message to send to people especially to those who are simple minded and believe everything television tells them. Here is the link if you dare watch it, and tell me what you guys think about it.  

Where's the link?

This ad was just on English TV:

smoking ad

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zB5RYCIp-Iw&noredirect=1

I choose Calvin Klein advertising, this is a video for underwear. This ad shocked me and i think this is not normal to see that.
But why i chose this one ? I explain: in my opinion, this is a subject really important and timely subject ! A lot of women have sexuality without desire, especialy younger women. They don't understand what that's really mean ! In this ad, the girl is an object, as you can see at the end there are an other man who came. When younger people watch this video they doesn't make the difference between love and sex.

I have one little sister and i think that's important to explain her the difference and i wouldn't like that she look at this. This ad is not an example, it is disgusting!

The man shows to her his underwear with his eyes, that's an order!
So what does this mean ? simply for beautiful underwear, the woman should be forced to give his body? for me this is a taboo subject, the viol and pornographic.
This kind of advertising should be banned !

I’ve chosen not an ad, but a demonstration, which I think is also part of a communication campaign. This demonstration was organized by PETA, in 2010, in New York.



I don’t know if it is because we don’t share the same opinion on animals and vegetarianism but I think this kind of campaign is too provocative and excessive. It shocks me because they reduce men to animals.
Let’s be clear, I'm against all forms of cruelty to animals, killing animals for their fur or ivory is just disgusting and blameworthy. But personally, I think we can’t compare these acts to meat consumption. Humans have been eating meat for hundreds of thousands of years to stay alive and be healthy!
This demonstration played its role because it shocked me. However it had the opposite effect: I hate PETA, it made me angry with this organization. I find them just stupid, their message is a nonsense. What about animals themselves? Are they allowed to kill other animals to survive? Lions for example are they doomed to eat plants? It is so incoherent.


Another PETA advert:




How can we compare feeding kids with meat to child abuse? Their messages are striking because they are repulsive and inappropriate.  In the end, I don’t know if they make people think about animal rights. These folks don’t have the same priorities: while some kids are suffering because they are abused, these brainless activists are fighting against something that is natural: man is a carnivore by nature. All they do is giving a bad image of the community of vegetarians.

For me, the advertising poster campaign of the International League against the anti-Racism and the Anti-Semitism (LICRA) in France, appeared in November, 2010 seems to me provocating. The picture shows us infants in the maternity hospital. We see at once that something does not ok, because the baby in the center of the image is dressed with a uniform and accessories directly borrowed from the work’s world (and adults). Furthermore, the baby in question is different from the others because he is black, what emphasizes his origins.
This advertising is hard-hitting and does well to spend the message of the association because it deals with a taboo subject: the racism in a new way. This campaign disturbs us so much because it uses babies (innocent and naive beings) to illustrate a stereotype which everybody refuses to admit.

LICRA is used campaigns which disturb in particular as the previous one shows it by exposing us the disparities in front of the employment (or unemployment) caused by the skin color.

The only risk it seems for me is the fact of arousing an awareness on behalf of the public and of trying to modify the customs towards the colored persons who are too often stigmatized and victims of prejudices.

http://theinspirationroom.com/daily/2010/licra-babies-challenge-racism/

I chose to speak about two advertisements that I saw recently and that I found extremely shocking.
The first advertising is a video diffused in November 22nd 2014.  It was posted by the official channel of the Hungarian police. Since this date, it was deleted thus you cannot found it.

To go to see it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dFvzX_9NDw
I find this shocking advertising because it deals with a difficult subject : the rape  with no consideration or intelligence.
In 21th century, I found this publicity scandalous. We again dare to incriminate a woman for this kind of aggression while the man is often forgiven, justified or acquitted.
So if a woman is raped and if she has the bad luck to wear sexy clothes, it is normal ! It’s her who looked for its, so, it’s her fault. Obviously.

I find ridiculous this advertising because it decreases at the same time the women but also the women.
Men are not just like animals which jump on all which moves!

This advertising is filledwith stereotypes, all more horrible some than the others.
I advise  you to go on the link from and begin at 56 seconds. "Mathieu Sommet" explains very well the ridiculous of the situation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7i6aEKP-i4
I wonder what type of message understand  the Hungarian girls after this advertising… The more important it is because we do not say who are the real culprits, the rapists.

How an European government can be agee with this video?
I don’t think that if you say to the girls “it’s your fault”, there are fewer rapes, on the contrary. There will be always so much but they will say nothing more, they will not lodge a complaint.

The second video was spread on June 17th, 2014 by the department of the road safety of the Ulster.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1guHNl_a85U
I am going to be fast for the analysis of this TV commercial because  it is so ridiculous and stupid that it is enough to see the video once to understand what is shocking.
The special effects, the assembly, the noises, the heads of the children everything is badly made.
I let you reflect about the messages which send back these two videos. For my part, I say to myself that finally, there is maybe a lot of job in the advertising and the marketing …