|
Let’s get one thing straight. Sex attracts – always has, probably always will. But it doesn’t work for everything and doesn’t always sell. And if you get it wrong it could seriously harm your business.
So when is sexing-up acceptable? Is it justified using the oldest ploy in marketing to sell an essentially dull, but functional, bit of software or a distinctly unsexy insurance policy? Is it the only way you’re going to get anyone pausing long enough to read your ad or tempted to forward your viral email? Does anything go?
Whether it’s overt images with titilating shows of flesh, clever word plays, mere expressions or suggestive body language, or the none-too-subtle use of phallic object – sex is everywhere and divides as much as conquers.
Rick Blears, a former creative director for a 600-strong, £60m turnover advertising group and now of RMSPR is adamant that it should be avoided like the plague. “Advertising’s all about finding succinct, original, exciting and reassuring ways to dramatise a product’s USP. What’s a predictable, monotonous and tasteless sexual inference got to do with any of that?”
Only last month Sainsbury’s agreed to place a protective cover over the lads’ mags it has on sale, leaving just the titles visible. This was a direct response to some customers registering discomfort about children being subjected to near-naked buxom women.
The point is, if you take the approach that sex sells, that’s exactly what you risk – and can you afford to alienate up to half your customer-base or create the view that you’ve cheapened your brand for the sake of the odd double-take?
But it doesn’t have to be that way. The Gossard Wonderbra ‘Hello Boys’ is a great example of getting it right. Its billboards stopped traffic and aroused the attentions of men, but it put women in the driving seat. Seven units were sold every second in its 1994 heyday – 1.6m in that year alone.
The classic Cadbury’s Flake TV ads are perhaps an even better example here, where suggestion was everything, despite chocolate bars, unlike bras, having no ostensible link to sex.
The landscape for sex in advertising’s changed. Sexual imagery and implied sexuality defined efforts throughout the 1990s, reversing Mary Whitehouse’s puritanical efforts. But consumers are arguably more sophisticated now with higher expectations of the estimated 20,000 messages they face every day.
Businesses too are pushing the boat out, by and large. But there are always exceptions, those who can’t resist a cheap saucy gag or a gratuitous bit of flesh. If your target audience is 18-24-year-old males you may decide it’s worth it.
“It’s a fact of life that a sexual image will attract attention,” says Mike Perls, managing director of marketing and PR agency MC2 and national executive director of the PR Forum.
“However, thinking a girl with a chest will sell anything to blokes is a common mistake. The audience is more aware than many give them credit for.”
His company boasts Deloitte, Grant Thornton and Credit Suisse among its clients and while the agency has used sex or sexuality for numerous campaigns there are clients where any such element is a non-starter.
Tricia Weener, managing director of Intelligent Marketing, which names Diageo among its clients, says companies have become more responsible across the board as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies.
This is particularly true of the drinks industry which has introduced its own code to ensure no link is made between alcohol and sexual prowess. The approach may not have filtered down to the smaller and mid-size businesses like yours where CSR policies are less defined, but it’s certainly worth noting if you aspire to reach the higher echelons and stay on the right side of acceptability.
|
