Whilst this is not exactly definative research it might be worth some consideration for those who think that group sex would not appeal to many women (as a visual fantasy even if not something they would choose to do)

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/women-embrace-group-sex-survey-20090526-blpi.html

There is plenty of other material around which suggests that as a fantasy goes it's one that a number of women enjoy. That does not need to translate into a willingness to try it in the same numbers or even a willingness to tell friends who they suspect would disapprove of it.

R0bert

Oh come on RObert!
Don't try to tell me that a billboard like that one would appeal to women as much as it does to men?
In your dreams! :)

Helen,

With all due respect, while the ad was not "banned" CK was forced to take it down, and it is unlikely they will display it again, saying it was not banned is just semantics.

Secondly, CK's advertising is about selling perception, and making you buy jeans for $200 when you can buy $20 jeans at a discount warehouse. The message is simple, wearing CK jeans will make you desirable by many hot young men.

"Blue rinse brigade" was specifically used to create a mental image of someone with old fashioned, out of touch ideas.

Suzeonline,

While it may have appeal to men, it does sell to women very successfully, as the sales results will show. Probably more to the youth more than the blue rinse matrons.

<< There is plenty of other material around which suggests that as a fantasy goes it's one that a number of women enjoy. >>

Absolutely. And as you say R0bert, that doesn’t mean that they are willing to try it. The vast majority would presumably keep it entirely within the realm of fantasy.

CK knows this. That’s why they produce this sort of ad. Because it works!

To state the obvious: if it didn’t work, we wouldn’t see ads like this. And it can only work if it appeals to the fantasies or desires of the targeted demographic.

*That’s why they produce this sort of ad. Because it works!*

Exactly Ludwig. I think that the wowsers and Suze are reading far
too much into it all.

Advertising agencies are pretty good psychologists. The human brain
works by association, thats all it needs, even though most
consumers would not even be aware or it. So to create a status
symbol, advertising creates these associations.

In this case its attractive young people with jeans. In the case
of Nike its Tiger Woods and their shoes. With Rolex, Hermes
handbags etc, its all the same, success associated with their
products.

Result is people will pay a fortune for these products, as they
seek status. China is now the world's biggest market for these
expensive products, as the rich and aspiring, seek status.

Which is all a very clever way to make a quid.

Cosmetics is a classic, as they generally don't cost much to
manufacture. I once knew a cosmetics manufacturer who had been
selling cheaper lines to supermarkets etc. They put their prices
up 40% and as a result sold 50% more in volume, as people associated
a higher price with a better product.

People don't generally study billboards in depth. Its just that
flash of an association that remains in their minds, that does
the trick

Dear Ludwig, good question! The ASB has lots of information on its website, which is well designed and very easy to work through. A good place to begin is the FAQ section:

http://www.adstandards.com.au/process/frequentlyaskedquestions

Plus the section on self-regulation:
http://www.adstandards.com.au/self-regulation-system/aboutself

The mechanism of what happens when a complaint is upheld is described on the FAQs as: "the advertiser is requested to remove or amend the offending advertisement as soon as possible after receiving a copy of the draft case report."

Shadow Minister, I don't think it is semantics to say that banning is a different thing from a request to remove made to one of its members by a voluntary and self-regulating association, an organisation that moreover that has no means of enforcing its "request" other than to say, well maybe you belong in a different voluntary organisation.

kind regards, Helen