Are magazines still a thing?

Jeez, man. Get a life.

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_%28perfume%29

Ad campaign controversy
A poster advertising campaign for the perfume caused another controversy in October and November 2000. It featured the model Sophie Dahl lying on her back wearing only a pair of stiletto heels, seemingly in the throes of ecstasy, with her legs spread apart as she covers one of her nipples with her hand.[9] This ad compaign, photographed by Steven Meisel, was widely seen in print ads and posters in bus shelters in many countries. It won an award in Spain[10] but generated an uproar in other places, particularly in the United Kingdom. The British Advertising Standards Authority received more than 700 complaints from the public, and ordered the posters to be withdrawn on the grounds that they were too sexually suggestive, degrading to women, and likely to cause “serious or widespread offence”.[11][12] American journalist Susan Faludi argued that certain perfume ad campaigns pushed “idealization of weak yielding women” to the extreme, citing the Opium advertisement as a primary example.[13]

••••
I despise “marketing” and this would be one of the reasons why. I believe that advertising a product is fine – but the advertisement should be about the product and what makes it better than the competition. The manipulation and deception that go into marketing annoys me. It is one of the reason why I avoid media that use advertising. Thus, I do not consider this image any less annoying as a perfume ad than if it were for sport tires.

The nudity on the YSL ad serves a pupose. It’s communicating an emotion, a sensation that it’s trying to tie into it’s product. It is bare, luscious, seductive, sensual—all qualities they want to convince you to feel when you consider that fragrance. “You too (person reading Glamour) can at least feel this decadent rolling around in velvet when wearing Opium”.

The bottle doesn’t need to be shown, and IMHO doing so would be an amateur mistake. You are not selling the bottle, you are selling the feeling of using the product. When you sell that to a person the bottle is pointless. It’s just clutter.

And since when is a woman expressing her sensuality exploitative? Why do women have to constantly be victimized when it comes to anything sex? That feels awfully sex-negative and denigrating to women to say they can’t use their sexuality as they see fit.

Didn’t you just ask this but with a different perfume?

Despite your inability to provide issues or facts, I can tell you that magazines most certainly consider audience. It is not uncommon for a director of a shoot to turn tables from women’s mag to men’s and expect an entirely different result. It is called marketing.

Wait wait wait !
What was the question ?

@hearkat The manipulation and deception that go into marketing annoys me. It is one of the reason why I avoid media that use advertising.
How is this ad deception? It is not like a bait-and-switch. There is curiously very little that can be seen as being sold. If the ad was in a language other than you read, unless you are familiar with YSL you’d have no clue as to what was being sold; since you don’t know what is being sold, how can one be deceived?

@sinscriven The nudity on the YSL ad serves a pupose. It’s communicating an emotion, a sensation that it’s trying to tie into it’s product. It is bare, luscious, seductive, sensual—all qualities they want to convince you to feel when you consider that fragrance. “You too (person reading Glamour) can at least feel this decadent rolling around in velvet when wearing Opium”.
I never really looked at it THAT WAY, thank you for that input, it was the type of input I wanted to hear about. But as stated by @hearkat, she would have rather just seen it be about the product, with a bottle and maybe the ghost of a woman in the background, I don’t know, but less about what emotion or conveying of such that comes from the exotic imagery. There have been ads from Abercrombie & Fitch, and American Apparel that had fully clothed women but were seen as more sexually exploitive.

Why do women have to constantly be victimized when it comes to anything sex? That feels awfully sex-negative and denigrating to women to say they can’t use their sexuality as they see fit.
That might be a future question, because I can’t tell you. It seem the more it is done, the more women are made victims because they are put there. I can’t fathom a reason in today’s society where a woman can exercise her sexuality and boink someone she met at a club, dance, wedding, bar, etc. hours earlier, or even live long-term with a man not her husband but become a victim by media if said media shows her in any sexy or sensual way.

@chyna Didn’t you just ask this but with a different perfume?
No, different question; that one I wondered why they (the manufacture) of the perfume chose to use the perfume bottle covering the privates of a woman in a woman’s magazine, especially when they could have shown the perfume bottle by a wrist or hand, where on usually use perfume. That made me think, if no one thinks an ad like that would be exploitive of women would the same be thought if one replaces the bottle and places a hammer drill there in a men’s tool magazine. That is the track of this question, would the same ad, with a male centered product in a men’s magazine be seen as more obscene or less; if at all.

@GloPro Despite your inability to provide issues or facts, I can tell you that magazines most certainly consider audience.
Regardless of the fact I cannot recall which month of Glamour I seen it in, the ad exist and I am sure ran in other magazines like Redbook, Harper’s Bazaar, Vogue, etc. So, if editors know their audience why would they put a naked woman in a women’s magazine when there maybe women who would be highly offended?

It is called marketing
I understand marketing, as I said, this one was pretty slick, and even if it caused uproar it got YSL in the spotlight. It is not like people are going to boycott the brand; it is too major and too big. What I am trying to explore is if the same ad with a male-centered product being the product pushed would it be perceived different than it being perfume for women in a women’s magazine.

@Hypocrisy_Central I HAVE done the research, and, quite frankly, you are full of shit. I have found the campaigns, but will not present them. Because you present no facts, I shall meet you in saying I have proof you are provoking argument under false pretenses.

Your facts are bullshit, as they pertain to the magazines you mention. It is up to you to prove those facts. Not up to me to prove your bullshit incorrect.

I stand by solid proof that magazines cater to the audience, and typically overtly sexual ads are not promoted in women’s rags.

Prove me wrong. We all know your spin history.

And, please, because I would like to continue this argument without it being pulled due to your poor grammar usage, learn to spell and use proper grammar. I’m sick of your arguments getting halfway before disappearing because you don’t use high school senior English.

I didn’t say that this particular ad is deceptive; I said that I don’t like marketing in general, because of the manipulative (which is the case in your example here) and deceptive practices.

Do not be fooled. The same company will set up multiple ad campaigns within a single shoot. Those shoots cover sensual, sexy, overt, covert, dirty, etc.
There is nothing surprising or wrong about that. What @HC fails to do is prove that the campaign runs in the intended audience. Therefore the entire question is misleading.

@GloPro Your facts are bullshit, as they pertain to the magazines you mention. It is up to you to prove those facts. Not up to me to prove your bullshit incorrect.
Use high school reading, I never said women’s magazine promoted sexy ad because they are women’s magazines or that those are the only type of ads you will see in a women’s magazine. I will say again, I am exploring if the same ad or type of ad like that were in a men’s magazine with or without an illustration of the product if it would be seen differently, more obscene, less, not at all, now are you up to speed?

I’m sick of your arguments getting halfway before disappearing because you don’t use high school senior English.
Was that a cut? Sharpen your knife….

It is not a cut. I’m still trying to decipher your answer. You are clearly intelligent, but lack written skills. I’m trying to level the playing field by asking you to step up.

@GloPro I’m still trying to decipher your answer.
Let me help you if I can keep from it sounding like a poll.
• Would the same image in a men’s magazine selling men related product be seen as more sexual, obscene, crass, etc. than it is when inside a women’s magazine?
• If you were in Germany and seen the ad and could not read Deutsch and was not familiar with YSL would you know what was being sold, shoes, velvet fabric, jewelry, etc.?
• If it is about selling perfume to women why use a nude woman to attempt that?
So, you have any thoughts on the aforementioned bullets, or do I have to redo the grammar? ~~

Nope… You just need to open your eyes. England uses much more overt sexual connotations, including nudity, to advertise.
Men’s magazines use much more overt advertising campaigns than women’s magazines for the same product. I didn’t think that was a mystery. Obviously men’s brains are attuned to more sexual campaigns than women’s. No big surprise there. The campaigns used in men’s rags are definitely more
sexual in nature. I disagree that it exploits women. It exploits what attracts men.

The fact that you have yet to provide a single concrete proof that men’s rags advertise differently than women’s tells me that you cannot find a women’s magazine ad that exploits or offends women. Until you come up with a common day women’s mag ad that offends the general female population, you are spewing crap.

Take your time.

The fact that you have yet to provide a single concrete proof that men’s rags advertise differently than women’s tells me that you cannot find a women’s magazine ad that exploits or offends women
Why would I have to prove a point I am not attempting to make? I feel the marketing is different from what I have seen but that is not the question. I also did not say women’s magazine exploits women, quit chasing demons that are not in the house. In my OP I said I did not knock the ad, how can I not knock the ad if I am opposing it? As the link @hearkat posted it indicated people did not like it because of the nude woman on it. I am sure some people state side do as well. That is not what I am attempting either, reread the bullets, I can’t see where you see any of what you just mentioned in there.

Um, ok. So what was your question again?

@GloPro The basic under laying issue is, if that ad had been in a guy’s magazine would it be seen as more sexual, exploitive, etc. than when it is in a women’s magazine; does the usage, location, etc. play a difference on how people would receive it? For example, if it is on the side of a bus as oppose to a display at the mall in Macys by the perfume counter or handbags does it get seen the same or different?

Oh. Simple. Of course. Just look at the ads in Maxim vs. Glamour for the same perfume. In a women’s rag the perfume transforms me into Xena, warrior princess. In a men’s mag, it transforms your girlfriend into Kate Upton in fur… Ready to manhandle the next fur rug you encounter to flatten it out beneath her prowess. And you are the lucky receiving bastard.

Same message. Different ad. All good.

@GloPro – I interpreted the OP as asking this: if you encountered this image in Road & Track magazine with a Pirelli Tires logo on the bottom, would you be OK with it? Would your determination of how “appropriate” the image is be equivalent if the ad were for tires as opposed to perfume? If you would rate the acceptance level differently when using the same image for different products, how can you explain that discrepancy in opinion, considering that the image has nothing to do with the product itself?

It’s pretty commonly accepted that the ads in men’s magazines, such as lifestyle rider or maxim, will have more sexually explicit ads. Those ads do not influence women to buy products or visit websites. HOWEVER… A slightly different layout, pose, eye contact with the camera, with different wording, placed in a women’s magazine, will garner the same result: visits to the website or search for sales.
As mentioned before… It is not uncommon for a photographer or on set producer to alter the frame up mid-shoot. There are many poses, serving many advertising markets. None are degrading women.

@GloPro It’s pretty commonly accepted that the ads in men’s magazines, such as lifestyle rider or maxim, will have more sexually explicit ads.
Yeah….the ads in a guy’s magazine will be geared to be sexier regardless of the product; however you usually see the product they are selling. For example you would see a hot blonde in a crop top and booty shorts draped over a snazzy car with water buckets and soap all over, but in the corner somewhere you will see an illustration for some car wash solution, shammy, etc. You might see a semi-nude or nude woman but she would be laying across the tire.

Those ads do not influence women to buy products or visit websites.
Why would a woman be interested in purchasing an impact wrench, grinder, or hammer drill if not for her spouse? Unless that is what she is doing I doubt those ads will drive them to a Website either.

None are degrading women.
WHEW! At least a point we can agree on.

@hearkat Thank you for restoring to me the fact I was not speaking Chinese; you seem to get it. :-}

@Hypocrisy_Central I was talking about the same products being marketed different ways… Not wrenches and tires. The exact same brand, different magazines.

What does “exploiting women” mean?

The whole question of “what is exploitation?” has to be answered first. My view is that this is a nebulous a concept as “hate speech”—people use it as a label whenever they don’t like something but have no good reason to not like it.

Read Vance Packard’s The Hidden Persuaders for some interesting information about advertising, its possibilities, and its limitations.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Hidden-Persuaders-Vance-Packard/dp/097884310X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1399723397&sr=8-1&keywords=vance+packard

I was talking about the same products being marketed different ways… Not wrenches and tires. The exact same brand, different magazines.
That was why I included:

What if it were in a gearhead car magazine, with the same woman, the same pose, but the only wording in the ad was So-in-so tires, or performance mufflers, etc. without even a photo of the product.

Hoping it would be seen as the same image but a guy centered product mentioned in the text sans product illustration but in a guy-centered magazine. I would not expect, or have not noticed yet, there ever being a perfume ad in a gearhead, hotrod, etc. magazine directed at men. But if that same image was in a men’s magazine but selling a tool or drill, etc. people may say it was sexist. I wanted to explore how correct that might be. ;-]