I saw these ads a little bit ago and tripped out. I don't know what to think. It is definately out there and maybe they have gone too far. It just depends where the ads are being run I guess. If its in GQ or Playboy instead of Teen magazine that is two totally different things. I guess it is market based advertising. Who knows.
This is tame compared to a lot of ads I have seen in Europe and European magazines.
it even degrades pornography by making it stand for a commodity other than itself and just getting off
It is cheap and uncool and I hope that Puma crashes and burns because of it.
Allthough, you must hand it to them, they know their target audience: which is arsehole young aggressive males . . . 'Mooks' . . . it panders to their basest ideas slavishly oh yeah and to th egirls that are stupid enough to not realize that mooks are jerks and idiots and just want head
Not only is it degrading and offensive, the idiot responsible couldn't even muster the wit to be subtle about it. The spillage knocks it far past innuendo and firmly into pornography.
I personally don't like the ads at all! It is semi-pornographic in its nature and offensive.
Here is interesting food for thought though. To me if I was a female then I would find this totally degrading, but I showed these to a someone I know (female) and when she saw them, she wasn't offended at all. She started laughing as a matter of fact. I was like what in the world? I asked what she found funny about it. She said that she liked to take part in that *cough* "action" *cough*. I asked here if she felt offended or anything along those lines. She said, "no not at all". The thing is that I have known a lot of women that do take part in that interaction and don't find it offensive. I guess that is their target audience. I don't know but that girl made me rethink their approach, (still don't like the ads though)
I agree, a little sublety goes a long way, and would have made the ad more effective IMO. I didn't find them offensive, just trying too hard. Leave a little to the imagination for chrissakes.
I showed the ads to my gf...and it went something like "They can't do that! Can they? Wouldn't they get in trouble?" Cracked me up. Gotta love a woman like that.
<strong>I agree, a little sublety goes a long way, and would have made the ad more effective IMO. I didn't find them offensive, just trying too hard. Leave a little to the imagination for chrissakes.
I showed the ads to my gf...and it went something like "They can't do that! Can they? Wouldn't they get in trouble?" Cracked me up. Gotta love a woman like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>
don't get me wrong folks...
What I find offensive about this add is not the sex its the taking of sex and cheapening it for the sole purpose of exploiting young people's randy proclivities and merely selling them a commodity
who cares about giving head?! that's not at all debasing!
its the mere opportunism of PUMA . . . . it is cheap, and as somone else has said, its unimaginative.
I never got a clear understanding of where this (supposed) advertisement was published. As there are two slightly different versions of the same look I'll have to say that it looks "real" to me, although it could be someone's portfolio material.
I'm not personally offended by the advertisement, but I'm surprised that a company with ANY brand-value would risk letting a controversial advertisement threaten their brand name....
....unless they're wagering that their demographic are the adults of tomorrow, who are so inured to sexual imagery and innuendo that they'll immeditately gravitate to the brand once their parents have defined it as 'scandalous' and 'evil'. So, that would seem to be a strategy that mightn't have been considered so far.
Anyway, I like the ads, and I know a lot of girls who wouldn't be offended by them either.
Comments
Oh nevermind...
Cheesy, attention-getting ads need less attention.
Screed ...It's gotta be the shoes!
On the other hand, notice it's the same girl (same model). Practice does nothing for her...
[ 03-07-2003: Message edited by: sCreeD ]</p>
I will NEVER think of Puma in the same light again. EVER. And I definitely will never buy them.
cya in a bit....
g
This is tame compared to a lot of ads I have seen in Europe and European magazines.
<strong>*Yawn* They took a page from Benetton in the 80's, and P.T. Barnum's legacy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yep, he said that there was one born every minute. But I'm not sure that's what he meant.
it degrades Sex
it degrades women
it even degrades pornography by making it stand for a commodity other than itself and just getting off
It is cheap and uncool and I hope that Puma crashes and burns because of it.
Allthough, you must hand it to them, they know their target audience: which is arsehole young aggressive males . . . 'Mooks' . . . it panders to their basest ideas slavishly oh yeah and to th egirls that are stupid enough to not realize that mooks are jerks and idiots and just want head
[ 03-08-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
Not only is it degrading and offensive, the idiot responsible couldn't even muster the wit to be subtle about it. The spillage knocks it far past innuendo and firmly into pornography.
Dumb. Pointless. Tasteless. Sad.
Here is interesting food for thought though. To me if I was a female then I would find this totally degrading, but I showed these to a someone I know (female) and when she saw them, she wasn't offended at all. She started laughing as a matter of fact. I was like what in the world? I asked what she found funny about it. She said that she liked to take part in that *cough* "action" *cough*. I asked here if she felt offended or anything along those lines. She said, "no not at all". The thing is that I have known a lot of women that do take part in that interaction and don't find it offensive. I guess that is their target audience. I don't know but that girl made me rethink their approach, (still don't like the ads though)
I showed the ads to my gf...and it went something like "They can't do that! Can they? Wouldn't they get in trouble?"
<strong>I agree, a little sublety goes a long way, and would have made the ad more effective IMO. I didn't find them offensive, just trying too hard. Leave a little to the imagination for chrissakes.
I showed the ads to my gf...and it went something like "They can't do that! Can they? Wouldn't they get in trouble?"
don't get me wrong folks...
What I find offensive about this add is not the sex its the taking of sex and cheapening it for the sole purpose of exploiting young people's randy proclivities and merely selling them a commodity
who cares about giving head?! that's not at all debasing!
its the mere opportunism of PUMA . . . . it is cheap, and as somone else has said, its unimaginative.
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: pfflam ]</p>
<strong>I didn't find them offensive, just trying too hard.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I find their pretention to offend offensive.
PS: And could they at least find a girl with nicer legs?
[ 03-09-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
I'm not personally offended by the advertisement, but I'm surprised that a company with ANY brand-value would risk letting a controversial advertisement threaten their brand name....
....unless they're wagering that their demographic are the adults of tomorrow, who are so inured to sexual imagery and innuendo that they'll immeditately gravitate to the brand once their parents have defined it as 'scandalous' and 'evil'. So, that would seem to be a strategy that mightn't have been considered so far.
Anyway, I like the ads, and I know a lot of girls who wouldn't be offended by them either.