As advertising is very common and competitive, controversial advertising has increased over time to gain a competitive advantage. In modern times, with the development of more sub-cultures, the increasing complexity of society has given advertisers ways to incorporate these sub-cultures with accompanying advertisements to increase brand awareness.
The textbook definition of controversial advertising is advertising that "deliberately, rather than inadvertently, startles and offends its audience by violating norms for social values and personal ideas." Incorporating shock and humour into these advertisements can give consumers reasons to remember a brand/product.
Controversial advertising can be found on all media platforms; this includes print ads, TV spots, online, and guerrilla marketing. Controversial advertising can be very cleaver in creating a successful ad that people enjoy and remember, or offend certain groups and impact negatively on the brand. However, there are some controversial advertisements that are so successful and memorable, they derive attention from the brand itself, causing people to remember the ad but forget the brand.
Advertisement 1: David Guetta - F*** Me I'm Famous Album
About the add
Worldwide known DJ David Guetta promoted his latest electronic dance music compilation album called 'F*** Me I'm Famous' with a poster, The Poster was comprised of Guetta and his wife, Cathy Guetta, posing topless in front of a red background, with his hands over her breasts. With the album title printed in the middle of the poster in block capital letters. The advert received controversial attention due to the explicit poses both people on the poster are involved in, and the language used to promote the album of the same name.
Audience
18 - 24 year olds
Listeners of Guetta's previous music
Effectiveness
Upon the poster release. The Advertising Standards Board deemed the poster too inappropriate and had it removed from all locations around Australia. Therefore the poster, while being not controversial compared to other photos found on the internet, did not create an effective form of advertisement for the album.
Opinion
I believe the poster is poor form of advertisement due to the subject manner in which is was representing. The poster represents an album, which has a crude name to begin with, as other album/song/artist names are just as crude this is not the issue. The issue is that the nature of the two people on the poster; the lack of clothes and cupping of the breasts, is a style of photo many may see in a high fashion clothing advert, also not an issue. Only blended with the album title is it an issue, because the wording directly relates to the photo, leaving little to the imagination. If the album had a different name the poster may not have been an issue. Even though the rest of the first word is replaced by asterix, it is too closely linked to the word it is implying.
Trade Press Article 1
http://mumbrella.com.au/asb-rules-against-f-me-im-famous-guetta-poster-174381
Advertisement 2: Carl's Jr. - Sexy Paris Hilton washing car and eating hamburger.
About the add
Famous socialite Paris Hilton shot a video for burger restaurant chain Carl's Jr. which was comprised of Paris washing a car, during the car wash she takes a break to bite into the new spicy BBQ burger. After the car is washed the words 'that's hot' appear on the screen, tying in the nature of the new burger and the famous Paris Hilton catch phrase. The advert became controversial due to the sexualised manner in which the car was being washed, Hiltons body language and her revealing one-piece bikini.
Audience
18-34 year old males
Effectiveness
After the add was aired then banned. It spawned hundreds of news stories and became an online sensation. Initially creating further awareness of the advert, giving it a life after it was no longer aired on TV. Further advertising the brand and Hilton herself.
Opinion
I personally do not have a problem with the content of this add, however I can understand why others would. Some people may be offended by the portrayal of the female body whilst others wouldn't want their children viewing such sexual manner, which was originally broadcast at the Superbowl; one of Americas most watched sporting events. That being said, the advert at first appears as an ad for the car, or Paris hilton, then panning to the burger being eaten 2/3 into the video. As the advert successfully became a global sensation (as i am reviewing it 8 years after its initial release), a personal problem with the add is the lack of the add being for Carl's Jr., and too much about Hilton. Unfortunately, lot of people also mistake the add to be for Burger King, another large American fast food chain. Therefore the add was successful in controversial attention, however not for reasons the brand may have wished.
Trade Press Article 2
http://money.cnn.com/2005/05/24/news/newsmakers/carls_ad/
Advertisement 3: Tom Ford - 2007 Menswear Line
About the Ad
Tom Ford, the american fashion designer, released a menswear line in 2007, followed by a racy ad campaign to accompany the fashion line. Tom Ford has been notoriously known for their hyper sexualised print ads; being comprised of naked women clothed in mens suits, and images involving crouch grabbing. This campaign has given Tom Ford significant attention.
Audience
18-54 year old men
Effectiveness
The advertisement given shows a generalisation of what you will find in a Tom Ford print add. Mostly naked women with parts being covered with other models or a Tom Ford product. The advertisement alone may not have any serious affect as this is what is to be expected from Tom Ford. However, still creating attention alone if one wasn't familiar with the brand's previous exploits.
Opinion
The advertisement, predominately about fashion. I find very cleaver in the way they have shown the naked woman combing the mans hair. The parts of her body that are deemed revealing and inappropriate are parts you may see in a low-cut dress. However, as cleaver as the add may be, for an ad about mens fashion, there isn't much to see. Not even one full body of mens clothing can be seen, concluding that the nature of the advertisement has cast a shadow of the brand/product(s) advertised. The advertisement is relatively ineffective.
No comments:
Post a Comment