We aren't all marketing executives but we are all aware - whether we agree with it or not - that sex sells. The notion of sex is used to sell things where you can follow the thought process: perfume, underwear, toothpaste (nobody wants to kiss you with morning/coffee/smoky breath and if you need to be told that via sexy toothpaste ads then so be it I say. So be it.) and to sell things that until now you had no clue could ever be linked to sex. Such as cheeseburgers. By the way if any of you are in advertising might I suggest you start using sex to sell cleaning products? Bet you thought I was going to go all Bill Hicks on your asses. No I just think if people thought the cleanliness of their loo could affect their chances they might clean them more often. Just a thought. But let's return to logical sex selling. Perfume.
Rihanna is not known for her performances in a cagoule and sensible footwear. Why would she be? she's essentially an entertainer and cagoules are no fun to wear or look at. Sex does not sell cagoules and cagoules don't sell sex. Or they only sell niche sex. Rihanna is known for taking selfies whilst smoking and/or semi clothed and generally appearing recently to be having the time of her life with access to great wigs, sunglasses and great lighting.
How does she fund such an Instagram (when she isn't banned) lifestyle? Why, she tours and like any self respecting artist she sells perfume. Beyonce does it, Sarah Jessica Parker does it, Christina Aguilera's got a particularly lovely one. Britney does it, JLo does it. Everybody does it. Usually they smell OK and have surprising packaging and font considering the money going into the marketing here (Kate Moss, that is nigh on comic sans and you know it). What is not surprising is that the image of the celebrity marketing the scent was usually pretty sexy.
How does she fund such an Instagram (when she isn't banned) lifestyle? Why, she tours and like any self respecting artist she sells perfume. Beyonce does it, Sarah Jessica Parker does it, Christina Aguilera's got a particularly lovely one. Britney does it, JLo does it. Everybody does it. Usually they smell OK and have surprising packaging and font considering the money going into the marketing here (Kate Moss, that is nigh on comic sans and you know it). What is not surprising is that the image of the celebrity marketing the scent was usually pretty sexy.
| Why? Because that is how perfume is marketed, be it Sophie Dahl or Rihanna modelling the, uh, smell? The bottle? The reaction to the scent? I don't know, but until scratch and sniff really takes off this is how it is. | we do know that by hook or by crook or by Google kids are going to see sexualised images |
However apparently in her latest ad Rihanna has gone to far for her latest perfume Rogue, in which she rests her legs against a giant bottle of the scent. She is either naked with a strong shadow across her middle, or wearing incredibly wedgie-making pants. Apparently Parlux Fragrances received a complaint that said the advert was "sexualised and provocative".
The ASA has stated that the singer is shown with such a face on her "of defiance rather than vulnerability." Which leads them to believe that it is: "unlikely to be demeaning to women or to cause serious or widespread offence." The ASA has however belatedly given the ad placement restriction to protect children.
Going from the idea that we don't actually want to stop women being sexy or sexual - the school of lay back and think of England being arguably more unhealthy than the school of Page 3 - how do we deal, as feminists with sexy ads?
We have all been teenagers, and children - one assumes - so, we might not know the media used but we do know that by hook or by crook or by Google kids are going to see sexualised images. Isn't it better that the ones they know we monitor feature women who don't look passive or like they don't have a thought in their head?
I am not saying we disregard adverts, that we say "oh it's just an ad, it doesn't matter". I am saying we say yes to sexy ads, yes to visible pleasure - or in Rihanna's case seemingly dismissive discernment (Rihanna I think that would be a good perfume name) - yes to a woman appearing to be in control over her smell and her consent.
Also yes to giant perfume bottles.
Squeamish Kate
The ASA has stated that the singer is shown with such a face on her "of defiance rather than vulnerability." Which leads them to believe that it is: "unlikely to be demeaning to women or to cause serious or widespread offence." The ASA has however belatedly given the ad placement restriction to protect children.
Going from the idea that we don't actually want to stop women being sexy or sexual - the school of lay back and think of England being arguably more unhealthy than the school of Page 3 - how do we deal, as feminists with sexy ads?
We have all been teenagers, and children - one assumes - so, we might not know the media used but we do know that by hook or by crook or by Google kids are going to see sexualised images. Isn't it better that the ones they know we monitor feature women who don't look passive or like they don't have a thought in their head?
I am not saying we disregard adverts, that we say "oh it's just an ad, it doesn't matter". I am saying we say yes to sexy ads, yes to visible pleasure - or in Rihanna's case seemingly dismissive discernment (Rihanna I think that would be a good perfume name) - yes to a woman appearing to be in control over her smell and her consent.
Also yes to giant perfume bottles.
Squeamish Kate
RSS Feed
