So as a media student, I’ve seen a lot of advertisements that are offensive. After working in advertising, I know that a lot of factors that need to work before an ad is approved or deemed fit to be seen by the public. Yet, even after all these road checks there are ads that make you cringe and feel sorry for not only the agency and the people involved but also for the brand and the product. I was looking through some of the worst, when I figured, why not post them on the site for folks to think about. So here goes. The following ad’s were banned because they contain objectionable content. Wiewer/reader discretion is advised.
This ad was pulled out as the image was distressing to children. The ad could have conveyed the same message in a less traumatic manner, don’t you think?
The image is ghastly. What was the brand thinking? A corpse to sell a creme? Here I have no idea what the copywriter tried to convey.
Tells you the status of women in the ad. Simple and plain objectification of a woman as a sexual object. Signifier is the woman depicted in all her nakedness and the signifier is the perfume which states that it is as sexual as a woman. I feel sorry for the agency and even sorrier for the brand. SHAME ON YOU. Here its simple. Woman=sex=fragrance.
Well Bacardi, finally it all boils down to breasts, don’t it? A three breast woman. WOW! Every man’s fantasy come true. Except that its rather lame and extremely silly. I would not want to be you. You just trashed your own brand image. By alienating half the species on this planet, the brand is only losing its equity. Here woman=breasts=sexy=Bacardi.
So this ad not only portrays women as sexual objects created for satisfying male desires but is also offensive towards heavier people. This ad tells us the after effects of using a chocolate condom. So they are doubly offensive in their message. Fat people are human too, you know. Here chocolate= sexy= skinny= woman. Also by default chocolate=weight=fat woman= not sexy. As you can see the equation goes both ways.
So what are Dolce and Gabbana trying to say? That an orgy is acceptable, that violence towards women works? That their poster is giving more power to the males in the society by pinning women down. This image in a different situation can be interpreted as sexual coercion. But then again, the woman lying down is painted and dressed to appeal to the eyes of all the men looking at her, lying helpless while the man shows off his power status and authority. 3 hurrays for the phallus! Here woman=subversive=men=Dolce Gabbana= patriarchal society.
Isn’t it funny that we use the image of women to sell everything from toothpaste to condoms. We glorify women as sexual objects meant solely for pleasure and not as people with power of their own. Ironic, how all offensive ad’s have a picture of a a scantily clad woman. We’ve come a long way in advertising with all the research and the techniques and all the technology. Yet, some basic things have not changed at all. Here Durex=sex=women=sexuality=erotic
So here is another classic. Inducing teenagers into believing that snorting cocaine is as fashionable as wearing Sisley clothes. NO LOGIC considering that we ask people to stop doing drugs. What’s the brand trying to convey here? That cocaine=clothes=fashion=breaking rules=living on the edge= cool
If you love animals this next one will turn you speechless. What is the analogy here between dogs and shoes? Its utterly insensitive and illogical. And to see a poor animal tied in this fashion even for an advertisement is heartless. Here dogs=boots= fashion???
So its back to playing the race game? Did it not occur to anyone in the agency and in Sony that this ad is blatantly racist? That in order to sell your product you don’t have to be stupid. Well then again, one should never doubt the stupidity of people in large groups. White= Sony play station=new product= cool versus black= uncool.
