Since we're talking tomorrow about pron (yes, I misspelled that on purpose, in case my mom checks this blog), here's a link to new pronographic fashions.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/fashion/shows/11SHOES.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNnkIww7Gwk
(Ravenstoke "documentary" for Axe)
From Axe:
http://www.axebcww.com/
(A campaign for Unilever’s Axe body spray and deodorant launched in spring of 2007 used a microsite, or a small product-based web site, to offer downloads of its Bom Chicka Wah Wah commercials, ringtones, and theme song.)
And from another brand from the same parent company:
http://adage.com/garfield/article?article_id=120975
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
In the video, the advertiser is only advertising ladies with slim bodies as usual. It’s not strange to advertise slim or skinny bodies. This kind of advertisement is some how discriminatory. Yes! I think advertising the so-called skinny beautiful ladies is discriminatory because fat women are never advertised in any fashion shows. It’s a pity that fat women are not perceived as “beautiful women.” Fat women are perceived as being “ not beautiful, un attractive women” and most men don’t want them. Moreover, there has never been a fashion show which has used fat women to advertise their new fashions, why not?
I believe that the axe ad was very sexual and that the women were used as sex objects in order to sell the product. Why can't advertisers use people as regular and normal people instead of a ssome sexual being that can only get the audience attention by selling herself to the public. I am sure there are other ways to get your point across and not always use your body as a way to get people to notice you. And it is always the same type of body (small, skinny) and not the (big, fat) type. Who determines what is beautiful and what isn't? I guess the public because the ads are grabbing our attention whether it is a good thing or not.
Post a Comment