Is there too much irrelevant sex and nudity in ads?

Do you think there is too much irrelevant sex and nudity in ads?

DI: No I don't. I think advertising now is much less explicit or gratuitous than it was when I was young. A TVC from the 1970's for an orange juice product was shown on Australian TV recently and it highlighted just how sexy ads used to be - albeit very irrelevant to the product. There is no way ads like that would make it on air now.

CS: That assumes that sex and nudity is ever irrelevant. Most analyses of the human condition suggest otherwise.

 

Should advertisers and agencies be more sensitive to consumer attitudes towards sex?

DI: I think most advertisers and agencies are very responsible and generally quite risk averse. It's the brand, as well as the product sales that are at stake.

CS: No more or less sensitive than they should be to any socially accepted norm. The difficulty comes with advertisers and agencies becoming beholden to the disproportionately loud voices of a vocal minority. Brands should save their fear of a backlash for when it's warranted. Gross environmental irresponsibility, for example.

 

What is the worst example you've encountered?

DI: While there are a few overtly sexual ads in magazines and a few on TV currently, I actually believe the worst examples are those that portray unrealistic body images. This is a much more potent issue - one that causes many more issues with our younger audiences.

CS: Channel 9 pulled Ashley Madison's ad for its ‘infidelity dating site' -which featured sex and nudity - after 100 complaints. I can't think of a more appropriate ad to feature sex and nudity, nor a less appropriate ad to feature on prime time television, but these are subjective judgements.

 

Which media platforms tend to be the biggest offenders?

DI: Magazines. Men's titles in particular. Interestingly though, within Australia, we are already seeing a shift in sentiment of readers - via declining sales on the traditional ‘bloke' titles with one recently closing.

CS: The question assumes that there's an offence in the first place. I'd rather suggest that the channels that can most take advantage of this angle when deploying communications are clearly those that are less regulated. Although in my experience, TV and outdoor seem to be the most complained against channels.

 

Under what circumstances can sex and marketing be a good fit?

DI: I think personal image products, such as health, beauty and hygiene will always have an element of sex in the advertising and branding. They rely on humans wanting to feel good and feel sexy to sell these products. No one wants to buy the expensive cologne their mum likes. They want one that makes them feel attractive.

CS: When marketing has a product that doesn't sell itself.

 

Is Australia more sensitive to sex and nudity that other markets?

DI: I believe so. I think we have been caught up in far more political correctness than many cultures. Perhaps because of our cultural diversity and preference not to offend, we act a little more cautiously that many European countries.

CS: Not that I've observed. The challenge in Australia, as elsewhere, is to remain true to the stories we wish to tell for our brands, but to do so with relevance to the culture to which we're communicating. Sex and nudity shouldn't offend people - its use for bad marketing should.

 

This article was originally published in the 15 July 2010 issue of Media.