Fashion advertising is a billion dollar business. Its purpose is to convince customers to buy a certain type of wearable such as clothes, accessories or shoes. Fashion companies use many different ways to persuade customers to spend money on their products. In order to attract customers, companies have developed various kinds of communication strategies or techniques such as employing emotional appeals or sexual appeals in their advertisements. These techniques revolve around the idea of provocation and encourage consumers to gain personal pleasure or accept desire by looking at the eye catching imagery in the advertisements. These persuasive techniques are communicated through television advertisements, billboards, magazines, radio advertisements, or any type of media in order to reach their target audience, provocative advertising is present in promotional message for a variety of branded goods.
In today’s world, companies use provocation appeal to attract customers and sell their products. Fashion is sold to people every day through various means such as through online shops, physical shopping malls, magazines and television advertisements. Have you ever seen an advertisement without knowing what exactly they were trying to advertise? 2.
1 Child Abuse At times, companies may produce certain advertising campaigns to promote their ideals regarding best practices for advertising, thus provoking controversial public debates. The general public, judicial system, advertisers, companies and the advertising industry’s self-regulators often claim that provocative advertising has somehow subverted conventional advertising practices. An advert campaign for fashion brand Miu Miu that was published in Vogue magazine was banned for sexualizing a young girl. Miu Miu, which is owned by Prada, ran a double-web page advert that appeared to be shot through a slightly open doorway revealing a young female reclining on a bed (see Figure 3).
The UK’s Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) acquired a complaint stating that the photo looked as though a child had been dressed up as an adult in a sexually suggestive pose, deeming the advertisement irresponsible and offensive (Sweney, 2015). However, Miu Miu defended the advert saying that Goth was in a “sophisticated outfit, without a low neck-line, and nude make up”. Vogue mentioned that it no longer received any lawsuits from their readers but the ASA retained a company ruling that the advert could not be published again. Bruce Weber, an American fashion photographer shot for this Miu Miu campaign, the model Hailee Steinfeld in a wistful vision of 40s Americana like rolled hair, prim blouses and muted, tobacco shades (see Figure 4).
Miu Miu like expected nothing more than a few raised eyebrows at the appropriateness of dressing a 14 years old in a thousand-pound blouse. Unfortunately, Bruce Weber think of the railway is just a useful atmosphere setting device and a dynamic graphic point in this shot but it has been pointed out that the model sit at the rails have a sad face is a bad idea. Because of that, the ASA has banned this advertising was irresponsible and show the child in a dangerous situation in violation of the Code. A recent trend nowadays is the “desexualisation” of fashion advertising.
This inspiration for sexuality may be the most interesting aspect because its source is not singular in nature. Sex in advertising is the use of sex appeal in advertising to help offer a particular product or service. Sexually engaging imagery may or not pertain to the product or service being referred to. Example for sexually appealing imagery include nudity, sexy models, strong men and many more. Advertising feature controversial images of many woman and men in revealing outfits and postures selling clothing, beauty product or perfume. Designer such as Calvin Klein, Gucci and Dolce & Gabbana use controversial image to cultivate an omnipresent sex-tinged media presence. Moreover, sexual information is used to promote or advertise a products but most of the product are not associated with sex. Sex in advertising depends on developmental procedures and varies in viability relying upon the culture and gender of the audience.
The used of sex in advertising has been scrutinized for its inclination to typify the female body and emphasizing stereotypes. In fact, each brand seems to be different, which enables us to better study and understand this recent revival of fashion sales models. Thomas Carlyle, an American fashion designer famously known as Tom Ford, launched his eponymous luxury brand in 2006. He previously worked in Gucci and Yves Saint Laurent as the creative director.
He made headlines during his Spring 2003 advertising and marketing campaign for Gucci which resulted in provocative, racy and brazenly sexual photographs of the fashion models involved in the campaign. The issue gained prominence when a photograph of Carmen Kass surfaced, pictured with the enduring Gucci brand shaved into her pubic hair (see Figure 5). International press branded the shot degrading to girls and the advertisement was subsequently banned Another example of Tom Ford’s work is a fragrance advertisement (see Figure 6). This advertisement was published in 2007 to introduce Tom Ford’s most recent men’s perfume. The photographer, Terry Richardson, wanted to convey the sexiness of the product by executing an extra explicit photoshoot. The image included a bottle of Tom Ford’s cologne resting in between a lady’s breasts.
The lady was pictured grabbing her breasts and was lathered in what seemed to be oil. Her fingernails were painted with vibrant pink nail polish and her complete frame was excluded from the picture, apart from her chest. Apparently enough, the fragrance was targeted for guys, however there were no men’s gift in the photograph promoting the product. Why were her breasts being sexualized and used in a commercial for guy’s fragrance? These were the questions most people viewing this picture asked.
We have been taught by society to trivialize the sexualization of ladies bodies. This is why people get angry whilst, for example, a lady breastfeeds her baby in public. Breastfeeding one’s baby is a natural act, people should not be sexualizing the part of the body that is supposed to feed a baby.
The same common sense goes for photoshoots of models sexualizing their bodies Advertisers are challenged with navigating through cluttered advertising surroundings in order to come up with a unique strategy to promote their products. While their aim is to come up with an advertisement that will grab the attention of their target audience, studies indicate that they continue to glorify the violent exploitation of women. While these advertisements may not have explicitly promoted violence, it did depict ladies as helpless victims, and given its inclusion in a mainstream magazine, we are able to assume that it sells magazines and or clothes. Furthermore, if taken out of context, as images are often portrayed and shared on-line, and especially on social media, the alcohol-infused editorial takes a markedly darker turn. Take for example, Dolce & Gabbana’s controversial marketing campaign, which was coined the “gang rape” advert (see Figure 7). In addition, Calvin Klein also ran a rape-themed advertisement for their denim series in 2010.
There was also an advertisement in 2013, that featured a woman strewn on the floor and commentators felt that it served to trivialize violence against women The advertisement below (see Figure 8) suggested that by purchasing a suit from Suit Supply, ladies will allow men to do whatever they want, including having sex, touching inappropriately as well as grabbing and peering at their vaginas. Suit Supply’s advertisement speaks of ladies as sexual slaves, as well as infers that men purchase suits to improve their sexual interest exclusively to ladies, overlooking the whole homosexual populace An advertisement by Fly 53 (see Figure 9) received a complaint and subsequently incited publicity. The complainant said that the advertisement’s delineation of weapon wrongdoing was offensive, irresponsible and unacceptable to be shown in a magazine as it glamorized violence. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) concurred, remarking that the man appeared to be afraid and in anguish, and thus banned the advertisement since it glamorized genuine viciousness. The ASA stated: “Although the image resembled a scene from a film, we noticed the advertising was for a fashion brand and not, for instance, a film with violent scenes, which made it more probable that its depiction of brutality would be viewed as needless.”