(In order not to offend the sensibilities of anyone, I've decided never to post ugly pictures in this blog. So for this post I'm putting an old Kate Spade ad because it's nice, not because it makes me go "huh?") Ad campaign image from here.
---
Ever looked at a new clothing ad campaign and thought, "Huh?"
I have. And more often than I can count!
I'm referring to local clothing brands that have ads that seem to be undermining their purpose--which is to sell. Here's irony for you: on an ad campaign of a brand that's supposed to be selling t-shirts, a male model wearing the t-shirt is trying to pull the shirt off. What, are they saying their shirts are itchy?
And there's a brand for jeans (and underwear?) with a billboard that has the model in a weird pose, wearing some tasseled arm bands/leg warmers, jeans with the fly open... and a bra under... nothing. While I get that they want to sell the underwear, it isn't like people normally walk around with nothing over them (and with arm and leg tassels, lol)! And the jeans? It makes you wonder if the model wore them that way because the button has popped out and the zipper caught.
I have a friend who once wrote a letter to this same clothing brand company to tell them that their underwear ads are not very tasteful. You know what they told her? There's no other way to sell underwear but to do that! I'll say they're just too lazy to think of a better way.
While I would love to support Philippine brands by buying from local stores, it's difficult to stay loyal when you know that some of your money goes to the production of such mind boggling ads. I bought two pairs of jeans from a local store because I like how they fit and how they're not over my budget, but since then, I've spotted some barely-dressed ads with that same clothing brand emblazoned on them, and I can't help thinking my jeans-budget went on to proclaim that barely dressed and voluptuous is the beauty standard of today.
Call me over-acting, but must we consumers let clothing companies dictate what sort of "creativity" goes out there? To thrive, they're the ones depending on us after all.
Bench ads now are better than they were before in terms of being more covered.......Bench does not choose body types. Any famous celeb (or celeb on the rise can be a bench model as long as theyre not overweight--Kim Chiu is far from voluptuous.) The zip fly is open so you can see underwear, which Bench also sells. And most celebs are not paid to pose for the billboards (That is why they can keep prices relatively low in spite of aggressive advertising). Those are ex-deal. To a local celeb, few things are more career defining than a Bench billboard. (The celebs have a choice to edit the clothes. Sarah Geronimo poses for Bench but never wears revealing clothes.)
ReplyDeleteBut bottomline, it's still up to the consumer whether she would buy from the said brand. But again, few mass market brands are more reasonably priced than Bench.
Refreshing to know the celebs are not paid to do the Bench ads! But I still find it extremely funny that the fly is open (I know there's got to be a better way to sell underwear than that!)
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I was also referring to Folded & Hung and Penshoppe ads, not just Bench. The one with the model trying to pull off the shirt is Penshoppe, and my jeans budget went to F&H, which slapped a huge billboard of a bikini'd Angel Locsin in C5 right when I bought my newest gray pair. I do think Angel Locsin is pretty, but when you pass by C5 everyday and you hear people telling you that they think Angel "got fat," it makes you wonder if people really appreciate her pretty face or are not looking at her face at all.
What I think we can do is keep shopping only for the better options, and when the retailers notice which styles disappear fastest, they'll make more of those.
I agree -- part of being a responsible citizen and consumer is making conscious choices when it comes to companies one will support. Glad to know you are one of those, petrufied! This is how I've come to a decision regarding this matter: I am only one and I am no bigwig in any retail company. But I can do my part just the same by supporting and patronizing companies that demonstrate social responsibility and not just a devotion to the bottom line. Sure, it's a business, but keeping a business running with reasonable profits is not incompatible with making sure you have sound values guiding the company philosophy.
ReplyDeleteAs for the companies whose ad and marketing campaigns I find distasteful or offensive (especially to me as a woman), I simply don't patronize them and keep from promoting them in any way. And I talk with friends about these issues so they, too, are aware of the choices they may be making in the future. I used to love checking out F & H (particularly during sales, hehe!) and in fact got a really good buy once. But since the label's present ad campaign started, I've stopped patronizing the store.
Hi Anonymous. Good to hear about the models' no fee for being part of those ads. I think if Bench hired brilliant people to handle its ad campaigns, they'd come up with brilliant ways to, say, promote men's briefs with nary a hint of the piece of clothing in sight ;-)
Great blog here!
Oh btw, about advertising undies -- private and public are meant to be entirely different things. The thing about these underwear ads that bring the garments from inner to outer is that people unwittingly end up being ignorant of (or forgetting) what should remain private and what can be made public. Sad if everyone ended up like this :-(
Haha! Shucks. I hate that Angel Billboard too...it's ok if it were in the summer and she was selling swimwear....but no tagulan na. I didnt know that billboard was still in place.
ReplyDeleteYup she got fat. And yes she's pretty. Unfortunately, she's not known for being pretty. And for billboards of clothes (fashion spreads, editorials, catalogues for clothes), I say this as a designer, THE FACE IS NOT THE FOCUS...it's the clothes (what puzzles me is that Angel wasnt wearing any in that billboard), The face only becomes the focus in an ad if you're selling a cosmetic or beauty product.
People have the right to criticize Angel for gaining weight. She is in the Entertainment industry and it's her responsibility to look her best. It's part of her job description just like it's part of your job description to write well and submit articles on time. (in the same way that readers of a magazine can write letters to the editor if they don't agree with something that was written)
It's not that the fashion industry is objectifying models. No, we recognize their importance. That's why they are being paid so well. We know that the right image model can make or break a brand or launch a new designer to greater heights. Kaya lang we can also tell them they got fat. Of course, if you get fat, you can't fit into the clothes, you can't get hired. You know longer fit into the designer's Aesthetic. It's as simple as following a standard.
But yeah. Angel needs to lose weight. And she needs a new billboard selling jackets and clothes for rainy weather.
Hi Pia! Hmm o nga no, I tend to forget models in billboards are paid so the clothes will be highlighted. I guess it makes sense now why people don't look at Angel's face. (In that case Bench should get rid of their in-store displays of open-shirt-guys because they're selling the polo and not the "man-chest" and "abs" wahahahaha)
ReplyDeleteI think F&H replaced the Angel ad for a shirtless guy in jeans billboard (ikr:"again?"). Only the jeans take up like 1/16 of the billboard and you can't imagine how it looks from the hips down to the ankles. XD
@Sunnyday, thanks!!! :D