April 16, 2004
WINNING THE CULTURE WARS:
Risqué may be too risky for ads (Bruce Horovitz, 4/16/04, USA TODAY)
The aftershock to Janet Jackson's breast-baring Super Bowl stunt has finally hit the nation's cultural core: Madison Avenue. Some major marketers — under pressure — are abstaining from sex as a sales tool.Anheuser-Busch said Thursday that it plans to drop risqué ads. The beer giant joins a growing list of edgy marketers — including Victoria's Secret and Abercrombie & Fitch — that have recently taken very public steps away from over-the-top sexuality.
An aging generation of baby boomers is increasingly queasy about the often-grungy sexual imagery that has become almost second nature to kids.
"There's a sense that nobody's minding the store," says Allison Cohen, president of PeopleTalk, an ad consultancy. "There's a real reining-in going on.
Who ever thought the baby boomers would grow up? Posted by Orrin Judd at April 16, 2004 7:56 AM
Coors has descended to the lists in its ads. Not a smart idea when Pete Coors (whose son went to high school with my brother, by the way) is running for Senate.
Posted by: Paul Cella at April 16, 2004 8:20 AMOJ: I'll believe it when I see proof. This is indirect correlation, not causation.
Posted by: Chris at April 16, 2004 8:30 AMBut did Ms Jackson's little stunt help or hinder her career?
(that's not a rhetorical question - I genuinely don't know. Though I understand she became the most-searched name on Google for a while?)
Posted by: Brit at April 16, 2004 9:17 AMI wouldn't put the Victoria's Secret ads in the same category. They are sexy, but I wouldn't call them grungy or degrading. Since their product is sexy lingerie, how else would they sell it?
Posted by: Robert Duquette at April 16, 2004 12:30 PMWell, the Boomers were into Total Sexual Freedom (TM). After all, they threw away the stars so they could screw in the mud at Woodstock (while mooching off mommy & daddy).
Why do they throw such a fit when their children follow them even farther down the same path?
Posted by: Ken at April 16, 2004 12:40 PMRobert:
How about having Phyllis Schafly saying "Check out Victoria Secret's full line of well-engineered, hygenic foundation garments for the serious and moral family woman. And now... back to Barney."
Maybe the point is that Victoria Secret shouldn't be advertising on TV. I know, I know. Censoring Shakespeare is next.
Posted by: Peter B at April 16, 2004 12:49 PMA couple of points on Victoria's Secret: Their last tv special did not fare so well, the le boob de Janet affair was as good a cover (or rather the lack of) as any to somewhat gracefully get out of an expensive and not very effective marketing tool. And the latest catalogs feature a new line aimed at teens and pre-teens. I mean, Bill O'Reilly would practically leap off his chair in outrage at the targeting of teens with sex, along with generous clips of the tv specials shown to, ahem, illustrate his outrage, of course.
Posted by: at April 16, 2004 1:14 PMHeadline in yesterday's Maui News: New erectile dysfunction ad features explicit language
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 16, 2004 2:27 PMAs long as they still send me the catalog, I won't mind. Sex in advertizing has always been around, it is this trend towards raunchy, unimaginative bump & grind rawness that is giving sex a bad name. Understated sex is sexier and more effective. Of course, we have ceded creative control for our culture to young blacks, and have to follow wherever they lead. Hip-Hop rules our culture because noone is bold enough to say "this is crap"! As John Kerry says, it's all about the rage, and we have to listen to them.
Posted by: Robert Duquette at April 16, 2004 5:57 PMHarry:
Erectile Dysfunction is different. That counts as a public service announcement.
Posted by: Peter B at April 16, 2004 6:38 PMI'm no expert, Peter, and the only time I watch TV is during the NCAA basketball championships.
Agree with Robert, to a point, on understatedness.
Those Cialis ads would never have passed the Legion of Decency, of which I was a member until about 1962.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 16, 2004 8:45 PMYou might not have noticed this in today's flood of news, Orrin, but Instapundit has an item about a HIV incident that has (for the time being, at least) pretty much shut down production in the "adult-film" (read: porn) industry:
http://www.instapundit.com/archives/015089.php
Posted by: Joe at April 16, 2004 10:07 PMA lot lower than I'd have expected, apparently.
There's regular testing, and while I don't know how many positives turn up, this is the first time they've gotten any attention since John Holmes nearly 20 years ago.
Very high suicide rates in that business, it seems.
Posted by: Harry Eagar at April 17, 2004 10:59 PM