gilly hicks sells sex to teens…as if they needed selling

It’s not often that the Daily (Ad) Biz has been in agreement with Bob Garfield as we have had our share of bad blood. However, when a man is right, he is right no matter what disagreements have come before.

I have to say that Garfield, in his review of Abercrombie’s new spinoff store Gilly Hicks, Sydney, is right.

The new brand, which sells underwear to teens and has nothing to do with Australia except for the “Down Under” reference that is probably funny to kids in high school, has created a lifestyle narrative that is, to quote Garfield, “You’re 16, and you are therefore a walking-talking hormone engine, so why not visit our website, declare yourself at least 18 and watch our semi-soft-porn vignette? There are nipples involved!”

Is Abercrombie all that different from other brands that use sex to sell? American Apparel and even PETA do it:

I feel a lot like my Mom for saying this, but even though sex sells and even though it really sells underwear to teens (because they are more willing than more to suspend disbelief – or more desperately flailing for anything to help them – and think that something like Gilly Hicks underwear or Axe body spray will make them more desirable), why is this something that we, as adults, are okay doing? We are selling teens on a lifestyle choice that has serious consequences.

To go back to Garfield, “the normalization of casual sex is simply a reflection of the real world, where increasingly anything goes down under. We can wince all we want, but this is one the culture has decided for us.”

That may be true that culture says its okay, but we are the advertisers. We are the planners and creatives and account people who make this work happen. It may be cool and edgy and fun from our hipster ivory towers and maybe we even live like our advertising – I know that a couple of guys in my office wish that they did – but I have serious reservations about selling a lifestyle with such terrible side effects for teens (a group that is uniquely ill-equipped to make good choices).

I am all about personal responsibility and the culture says that selling sex to teens is okay…but call me prude, I just don’t think that it’s right.

Not to mention that it is creatively unimaginative.

takin’ it all off for peta

PETA is at it again. No, I don’t know why either (except that the agency is probably having a lot of fun at the shoots for this).

Agency Tart said it best: I don’t think they’ve ever done an ad like this before. A celebrity sans clothing with a “Fur? I’d rather go naked.” tag line? Shut up.

Fur (or cotton or nylon or even lace)? I would rather you went naked, Eva.

Don’t do it for me, do it for the animals.

peta and the d-list

As a diehard carnivore, this vegetarian thing is not something that I really understand. But as a dog owner and outdoorsy guy, I am all for the ethical treatment of animals…but PETA just aren’t doing it for me.

Their ad campaign has been awful from before they showed Steve-O naked.

And it isn’t getting any better:

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with using celebrities in advertising, but using D-List celebrities? In one way it is good because I was sort of worried that Kelly Bundy had died or something and now I know that she hasn’t, but the D-List strategy is otherwise mystifying.

I won’t get into the copy and art direction because if you’re reading this blog you have either just gotten back from washing out the puke from your mouth or already know what I am going to say.

Agency Spy quotes an interview where Ms Applegate says that she couldn’t become a vegetarian because she couldn’t “eat something that has been alive.”

Neither could my college roommate – he pretty much only ate potato chips and drank soda for at least two years on the trot. Apparently, that makes him more legitimately vegetarian than someone who hatefully eats things like lettuce and tomatoes…you know, things that were alive. But I digress.

The Gap, however predictable their ads and in-store materials are, has this celebrity thing down. See, they use celebrities that are actually popular:

I am not sure that the celebrities are actually helping their sales, though Black Friday consumer spending is up 22%. I can say with conviction, however, that The Gap is doing better than they would if they tapped up the D-List.

a food stylist’s masterpiece

I was over at i believe in advertising as is my wont, and I came across a very funny, very well art directed ad for Negroni. Apparently, they make cut meat.

They also make good ads. And have one heck of a food stylist.

I think that I am going to send this to PETA, just to see if I can get a rise out of them. They deserve a little riling up after their current campaign, which I have panned once or twice and which made me a mortal PETA enemy because of the whole Steve-O naked thing. Not cool.

DDB, Milan did the Negroni work.

great or not, some minds think alike

There are times when agencies independently come up with similar ideas for ads that run concurrently. I can’t really back that statement up with paperwork, but I have just sort of felt that this happens from time to time.

And you know you have too.

Those times when you’re watching TV and you realize that you just saw four ads in the last hour that featured monkeys. Or magicians. Or, as has happened recently, naked girls.

Christina Aguilera has an ad for her new perfume:

Apparently, this perfume causes the magical sprouting of crazy tattoos on your body. No word on if you get to choose the design. I don’t get it, but Adfreak says that she’d rather go naked that try a competitor’s product. I’d rather she go naked as well. It’s a good move.

At any rate, the “rather not wear anything than something inferior” reminds me of the PETA campaign that is currently running.

stop, please stop…

First, PETA pulls out that Alicia Silverstone video that tried oh so hard to be more than a punchline, but failed:

“Nothing in my life has changed me as much as [becoming a vegetarian]…except blowing my shot at a career by going all Macaulay Culkin on everyone right after Clueless.”

And from that, PETA now serves up this:

W. T. F.? I am happier than I ever thought I would be for choosing the steak last night.

First of all, Steve-O would rather go naked than wear anything. Secondly, you just showed me Steve-O naked, making it my sole mission in life to destroy you and thus properly avenge the torture done to me.

I echo Agency Spy: “why? why? why?”

And add a “please, for all that is holy, STOP! PETA please, just stop.”