Week 1 discussion also focused on a visual campaign that failed to deliver.
Suggestions included Rugs A Million (t.v sales ad), Hogs Breath (Hot Pants Promotion), Eclipse Mint (t.v commercial), Dominos (Cheaper Tuesday Cheerleaders) and Van Heausen Underwear (banned on brisbane buses)
It appears that some companies have had their advertising campaigns cut short due to concerns with imagery involved. Often the circumstances involve stepping over accepted boundaries of society, as in the recent cases of Van Heusen underwear, Windsor Smith shoes and the Chiko Roll food product.
ReplyDeleteIt is a hard balance to strike at times, between 'edginess' and 'contraversial'. Though any advertising can be good advertising, negative branding is not. Major sponsors of sporting events and teams must avoid being associated with representatives who have achieved notoriety for the wrong reasons. Notably the most recent high profile example of this was Manly rugby league football club with respect to Brett Stewart.
Some expensive to produce advertising was pulled from distribution very quickly. owyn
Agree with you Owen. I think today's advertising attempt to play the 'sexy' edge up until the point that society jumps up and down. But ultimately many of us will remember these images long after they are pulled down from the billboards. The risk of notoriety will often positively effect the bottom line for many companies and they will continue to push the boundaries of morals and sexuality long into the future. KylieB
ReplyDeleteI agree with Kylie when saying that most of us will remember these images long after being taken down. We as the viewer are left talking about how shocking and controversial the image was, but we remember the name. Although this campaign was banned, I'm sure there are plenty of men out there with Van Heusen underwear! Jess. E
ReplyDelete