Make Seriously | Design and Life

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:

Why Social Media is Important, and Will Continue to Be

Time and time again I’ve come across blogs and mainstream media writers discussing one of two things:

- The demise of social media
- Marketers “ruining” social media with advertising

Both of these cause an involuntary raise of the eyebrow, especially when the articles they are writing are bordered by the exact things they decry. You can, of course, visit any of these sites as you find yourself in the paradox of a form of social media supported by advertising decrying the use of advertising in social media. There’s a clear lack of symbiosis to say the least, and it seems both counter productive and counter-intuitive.

A study by Rosetta and released by PRNewswire (09/08) shows that 59% of retailers are using Facebook. And that’s significant, and it also raises certain questions. Why on earth would a business want a facebook and why would “facebookers” want to be friends or fans of these businesses. Well, for one, there’s the phenomenon of brand loyalty that can’t be overlooked. Consumers often want to show their support for a certain brand (I have an apple sticker on my back window…) or group, and this is one way to make a public endorsement of a company. It’s a give and take relationship too. The Apple Students group for example, offers periodic “samplers” for those who are a part of the group. Who complains about ads when you’re getting free music? More importantly, who even notices the “ads” when it’s free episodes of Tina Fey’s material from 30Rock and SNL, or music from your new favorite emerging artist?

What the doomsayers of advertising keep forgetting is that it’s not a bad thing. Yes, it’s pervasive and overwhelming. Yes, sometimes it can be a bad thing. But advertising is not inherently intrusive, and often people actually crave it to be a part of their every day life. As mentioned in the study from Rosetta, “It’s important that retailers don’t just slap up a page because everyone is talking about Facebook.” That’s true. Taking an “everyone’s doing it” approach to promotions will lead to market saturation and will prevent you from making a positive investment and prevent you from fostering client relationships. And that’s the value of companies using social media:

- It creates a way for advertisers to connect with clients/users without appearing as ads.
- It drives innovation. Burger King, while slightly disturbing, has shown that buzz can come from creativity and innovation, even if it might make you cry yourself to sleep at night.
- It helps you communicate new, interesting things to the people who clearly care. One of the most valuable business lessons learned in school is that new client relationships are less cost effective than improving existing relationships. If you can do both at the same time on the same budget through social media, you’ve just created value for all involved.
- It removes the stigma from advertising. I can vote for which ads I’d like to see more of and help Facebook target me for things I might actually be interested in (like new movies or Obama’s inauguration). Why on earth would I complain about news I want to hear? Because it somehow defiles Facebook? As though it had far to fall from “Stalkerbook” status…
- When done well, it gets rid of the chaff. Good ads and innovation force the hands of those taking the cheap route. Brand recognition is one of the strongest forces in decision making, so failing to effectively advertise in an increasingly more difficult environment will mean failure to establish brand recognition.
- Have I mentioned it drives innovation? When you crowd out the market with GOOD advertising and effective communications, you force people to do better work to compete. That’s also not a bad thing, especially when the thing our economy needs most right now is innovation.

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.