conuly

Maybe they're going with the make-people-think-your-product-will-make-them-like-the-model theory. Which, in some ways, may work—like Victoria's Secret ads, for example (wear this underwear and you will be as sexy as the woman in the catalog).

But I don't see how the study proves that sex doesn't sell (or, to not paraphrase the article, how it proves that the ads in question don't work). I mean, the fact that women don't find the ads sexually arousing does not necessarily mean that the ads don't work for some other reason (including, possibly, the reason I mentioned above).

From:

I was thinking that too. Why would they assume sex doesn't sell when it's just images of sexy women that aren't working? If it's a women's magazine probably most of their readership is heterosexual women. My next try would be ads with sexy men.

*fondly remembers _that_ Diet Coke commercial*

From:

But I didn't even see anything that said the ads weren't working as-is. The women didn't find them sexually appealing, but that doesn't mean the ads didn't work for some other reason.

From:

maggiebloome.livejournal.com

*snorfles at the image of men in Victoria's Secret lingerie*

From:

ROFL, they're smokin' crack. Why the hell would anyone suppose that glamorous 'seductive' women = SEX to heterosexual women?

They don't even hit the 'insecurity button', because... let's face it, most of us old enough to be earning our own paychecks know perfectly well that we have NO CHANCE of ever looking like some uber-glamorous (and yes, photoshopped) magazine model, and we've learned to live with that fact. Most of us don't know any other women who look anything like that, either, so the idea that that's the standard we have to 'compete against' is patently absurd.

What sells to women is romance. So what they need is female models who are beautiful in an 'attainable' kind of way - not uber-glamorous, not dressed up like $5000-a-night call-girls, but wearing the kind of clothes most of us would love to wear if we were just a little thinner and richer.

And then they need male models who look like real men - not like $5000-a-night rent boys - only just a little more attractive than the average guy. The kind of guy that catches one's eye in the grocery store (only without the toddler in the shopping-cart that most such guys seem to have) - the kind of guy that a lot of women would love to meet, only they'd like to be just a little more attractive when they meet him.... and hey, maybe this new perfume or whatever would help...?

Yeah. They need to stop thinking "One-night Stands of the Rich and Gorgeous", and start thinking "First Dates of the Slightly Prettier Than Average".

From:

threeoranges.livejournal.com

Well, re models who are beautiful "in an attainable way"... Dove firming cream did just that (http://www.cmomagazine.com/read/current/real_beauty.html) but received a mixed response (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8813128/site/newsweek/) for it. (Apparently one of the posters was defaced with the words "TYPE 2 DIABETES" spray-painted across it.)

From:

Eh - like the article says, unflattering photography; even the 'hottest' supermodels wouldn't look so hot if they were photographed like that. But suppose those same ordinarily-beautiful women were photographed in a flattering way, and wearing something more attractive than industrial-strength Army-issue underwear? I don't know any real women who buy bras and panties that ugly, except in the last trimester of pregnancy when Beauty is irrelevant and Comfort is all-important.

People write things like "FEED ME" across the posters of skinny models - like that model for some brand of designer jeans, some years ago, who looked like an abused and starving 12-year-old war orphan - remenber her? I don't know what they were smoking to think any real women would want to look like that.

LOL, Dove firming creme is a useless product anyway. It doesn't do jack for 'cellulite', which is subcutaneous, and it doesn't have any long-term or cumulative effect either - plain old-fashioned witch hazel would 'firm' the skin just as effectively and just as temporarily.

From:

Yeah. They need to stop thinking "One-night Stands of the Rich and Gorgeous", and start thinking "First Dates of the Slightly Prettier Than Average".

May I

metaquotes that?

From:

Sure, if you like. :)

From:

soldierbabygirl.livejournal.com

This comment was TEH dead on correct. I love you forever.

From:

*smiles* Hey, thanks!

From:

velvetchamber.livejournal.com

At least those ads weren't in magazine aimed at homosexual bikers, then it'd probably have no effect at all (would they want to buy the products anyway?)

From:

ironychan.livejournal.com

Apparently all the ads for women's products that run in women's magazines are designed by men.

...

Nobody thought that was dumb?

From:

conuly

It certainly wasn't the best idea I've ever heard.

From:

neurotica0.livejournal.com

As far as those ads go, when women are the audience, I think the idea is that insecurity, not sex, sells.

From:

Maybe they're going with the make-people-think-your-product-will-make-them-like-the-model theory. Which, in some ways, may work—like Victoria's Secret ads, for example (wear this underwear and you will be as sexy as the woman in the catalog).

But I don't see how the study proves that sex doesn't sell (or, to not paraphrase the article, how it proves that the ads in question don't work). I mean, the fact that women don't find the ads sexually arousing does not necessarily mean that the ads don't work for some other reason (including, possibly, the reason I mentioned above).

From:

I was thinking that too. Why would they assume sex doesn't sell when it's just images of sexy women that aren't working? If it's a women's magazine probably most of their readership is heterosexual women. My next try would be ads with sexy men.

*fondly remembers _that_ Diet Coke commercial*

From:

But I didn't even see anything that said the ads weren't working as-is. The women didn't find them sexually appealing, but that doesn't mean the ads didn't work for some other reason.

From:

maggiebloome.livejournal.com

*snorfles at the image of men in Victoria's Secret lingerie*

From:

ROFL, they're smokin' crack. Why the hell would anyone suppose that glamorous 'seductive' women = SEX to heterosexual women?

They don't even hit the 'insecurity button', because... let's face it, most of us old enough to be earning our own paychecks know perfectly well that we have NO CHANCE of ever looking like some uber-glamorous (and yes, photoshopped) magazine model, and we've learned to live with that fact. Most of us don't know any other women who look anything like that, either, so the idea that that's the standard we have to 'compete against' is patently absurd.

What sells to women is romance. So what they need is female models who are beautiful in an 'attainable' kind of way - not uber-glamorous, not dressed up like $5000-a-night call-girls, but wearing the kind of clothes most of us would love to wear if we were just a little thinner and richer.

And then they need male models who look like real men - not like $5000-a-night rent boys - only just a little more attractive than the average guy. The kind of guy that catches one's eye in the grocery store (only without the toddler in the shopping-cart that most such guys seem to have) - the kind of guy that a lot of women would love to meet, only they'd like to be just a little more attractive when they meet him.... and hey, maybe this new perfume or whatever would help...?

Yeah. They need to stop thinking "One-night Stands of the Rich and Gorgeous", and start thinking "First Dates of the Slightly Prettier Than Average".

From:

threeoranges.livejournal.com

Well, re models who are beautiful "in an attainable way"... Dove firming cream did just that (http://www.cmomagazine.com/read/current/real_beauty.html) but received a mixed response (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8813128/site/newsweek/) for it. (Apparently one of the posters was defaced with the words "TYPE 2 DIABETES" spray-painted across it.)

From:

Eh - like the article says, unflattering photography; even the 'hottest' supermodels wouldn't look so hot if they were photographed like that. But suppose those same ordinarily-beautiful women were photographed in a flattering way, and wearing something more attractive than industrial-strength Army-issue underwear? I don't know any real women who buy bras and panties that ugly, except in the last trimester of pregnancy when Beauty is irrelevant and Comfort is all-important.

People write things like "FEED ME" across the posters of skinny models - like that model for some brand of designer jeans, some years ago, who looked like an abused and starving 12-year-old war orphan - remenber her? I don't know what they were smoking to think any real women would want to look like that.

LOL, Dove firming creme is a useless product anyway. It doesn't do jack for 'cellulite', which is subcutaneous, and it doesn't have any long-term or cumulative effect either - plain old-fashioned witch hazel would 'firm' the skin just as effectively and just as temporarily.

From:

Yeah. They need to stop thinking "One-night Stands of the Rich and Gorgeous", and start thinking "First Dates of the Slightly Prettier Than Average".

May I

metaquotes that?

From:

Sure, if you like. :)

From:

soldierbabygirl.livejournal.com

This comment was TEH dead on correct. I love you forever.

From: