BlogHer - advertising - Comments

Aww, shucks-

Ms. Debris — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:50:28 -0500

Cheers, Holly

Bravo!

nannygoats — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 14:59:42 -0500

You've just compelled me to read YOUR post because of the very reason you cite that you read them: that you can relate to them. All these blogs can sure make other bloggers feel competitve. One of the wrost things? That stupid feed burner counter.I just want to CHOKE that thing.

Margaret

Nanny Goats In Panties (www.nannygoatsinpanties.com)

oh, PUHLEEZE!

cosmicpossum — Wed, 06 Aug 2008 15:57:05 -0500

The sooner we get over our puritanical views on nudity, the sooner this type of thing will be considered passe'. For those of us that think with our brains, nudity doesn't always equal sex and the sooner everyone realizes this, the sooner we can get over ourselves. I've personally seen MUCH "sexier" ads all over Europe. pffft! When you grow up with it and it's not "forbidden fruit" to see someone naked, you over look this type of thing for what it is; an attempt to get your attention. Worked, didn't it?

exploits men

laraemeadows — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 13:55:12 -0500

The pornography industry, in its lust for money, objectifies and exploits men who perform sexual acts on film
for their profit. Moreover, pornography exploits the biological sexual
weaknesses of the watching man. It is a filthy denigration of the pride
of men and their bodies and must be stopped before men begin to believe in the dehumanization portrayed in these films.

It is common biological knowledge that men
are unable to resist viewing depictions of sex. Those who create and
sell pornography know about this biological weakness and pray on it.
Unable to resist even the slightest temptation to watch pornography, at
any cost; sociological, financial or emotional, men
instantly become addicted. Once they view the pornography, the reason
centers of their brains shut off and their brains absorb all
information given to them. This biological switch allows men
to be exploited unchecked. They become a sponge of images, ideas and
concepts but have no sieve in which to filter them. They would be
unable to sift through what is morally right or wrong. They would be
unable to resist their urges or desires because they have become
unrestrained. Good men become addicted monsters, frightening and sad.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/916169/pornography_exploits_men...

Yup

Kim Pearson — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 20:45:16 -0500

Agree completely with you and all the other commenters. Of course, if we get to bring things back from that year, may I please have the energy level I had then? Much obliged.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

What a difference 40 years makes...

nelle2nelle — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:30:36 -0500

Lets be clear here. I've zero desire to find myself back in 1968, for a whole lot of personal and societal reasons.

Women were just beginning to to recover lost ground from the disaster period of 1930-1960 or so. I can recall classified ads for 'female help wanted.' You know what kind of jobs those were...

then there was the whole thing about living in a closet, that rather sucked.

A war, another sucky deal.

And that allows me to segue back to topic. That war was covered - and ended - in large part through the effort of media. Even with our streets full of our young outraged at the deal being handed them, it wasn't until Walter gave his infamous take on Vietnam in 1968 that we finally had mainstream America questioning the war.

Not 5 miles from here, 5 of our own came home in coffins, their vehicle struck a mine. My sister new a few of them, they were former co-workers. And in one of the most famous photographs (national in scope) of the war, the five flag draped coffins all lined up nice and neat, complete with honour guard, sat on the tarmac against a backdrop of bright blue sky. Surreal. Disturbing.

We don't allow those types of photos any longer. News departments have long since succumbed to the breakdown of barriers between entertainment and news. We are the poorer for it, but it surely leaves me thankful that NPR exists, a shining light in a bleak atmosphere.

Even with all of the resources at our disposal, it seems incredible that our news is being sanitised. With all we can do to chat it up, we still are cut off from much of the raw footage that might have been visible 40 years ago.

I've a friend - someone I work with on a tiny dyke board of technodyke refugees - spent 18 months as a reporter, plying the wartorn and stripped fields and jungles of Vietnam - unheard of in that day and age... but they let her go. And oh the stories she can tell.

We've acquired new means of communication, but we have not kept apace with the social evolution of using that media responsibly. Read that as organisations tasked to the delivery of newsworthy content to the greater body of households. We've backtracked. We've allowed it to be sanitised in favour of embedding. We've allowed presidential motorcade routes to be stripped of protesters in favour of smiling, flag waving supporters of the person riding by - all the better for viewing.

We have all of this media at our disposal, yet we have allowed our choices in news to be made by those who are not interested in social responsibility and the betterment of society, but rather in making that next dividend a bigger one.

I'll take a few things from back then, and add it to the many things of now. We'd be the better for it.

nelle

llhaesa

Straight Up Pathetic and Car Salesmen Move Up A Notch

Gena Haskett — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 18:27:34 -0500

Do you know how many plastic surgeons there are in Los Angeles? Um, I need to add that certain medical and legal professionals are allowed to advertise services in California.

Will they read from papers recycled from an eco-friendly paper producer? Will they continue to do in depth reporting on tanning salons but now name names as to the best ones that just happen to support the newscast?

And don't think PBS is going to let this go by for too much longer. They are already running ads before the program. Pledge breaks have long been advertorials for books and speakers.

Wrong, so wrong unless of course some of the hot weather guys get to dish the weather in Speedos.

Gena - Out On The Stoop

Shakes head

Nordette — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 17:34:40 -0500

Here's my question: what happens when it comes time to investigate the
company whose product is prominently displayed on the set?

That was my first thought.

Yet another reason to question so-called objective journalism.

I don't care for the product placement in our entertainment shows either. My offspring watch Smallville and the product placement in that show is so obvious the actors practically turn to the camera and say "Look what I'm holding!" Ugh. How can you suspend belief and escape to show's version of reality if the actors are reminding you that the production company has bills to pay?

How can we hold the belief that the news coverage we receive is accurate if pushing a brand of camera or coffee is placed on the same level as the news? Critical watching and reading will need to be full courses in all elementary schools if this keeps up.

Nordette is a Contributing Editor with BlogHer.com whose personal blog is hosted on another site at this link.

Deceptive? Yeah, I'd say so...

zchamu — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 14:24:45 -0500

Especially when you consider the station displaying the "iced coffees" aren't really displaying coffee at all, but rather a brown liquid with fake ice cubes so that they won't melt during the broadcast. Ugh.

Visit my blogs at ThreeSeven (all that's irrelevant and amusing) and
ecochick (all that's green, cool and Canadian).

getting hers

Kel — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:18:45 -0500

I too fought a losing battle with a company I was a part of. It is hard to give and give only to know that you are underappreacated and undervalued. You did what you could and in the end you were the bigger person who didn't cause a scene when you left...yes, karma does come back to bite you in the ass sometimes.

porno advertisements con't (unfortunately)

jungle8 — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 18:21:47 -0500

Thank you so much for this post and linking to our blog, Sarah's post at jungle[8]. Unfortunately as you can imagine, this is not an isolated case. Top American designer, Tom Ford also released as series of tasteless, headless ads of women. We wrote about this campaign as well, on our blog: http://blog.jungle8.com/2007/09/13/a-socially-conscious-examination-of-tom-ford/

It seems as consumers, until we stand up and voice our opinion with our $$ these sorts of standards and practices will continue. Again, thank you for speaking out on this!

lainie liberti

creative director + principal

jungle [8]

A culture proud of their women

Blondie In Brazil — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:51:07 -0500

I've been living in Brazil now for a year. If there is one thing that I've learned - Brazil is very proud of their women. Comments are made all over the place about 'our beautiful women' and 'what do you think of the women?' Other expat bloggers here have commented on it too.

Sex is a huge part of it. Often I feel true beauty is confused with letting it all hang out, but this is how most Brazilian women choose to dress and display themselves. I am not generalizing, just as I wouldn't about women in the US, but if you visit here you would be amazed by what you sometimes see as acceptable.

My point is that I don't agree that it is another culture's fault or that of ads that cause people to associate Brazil with women and less than modest clothing. This is a stereotype that I have learned through personal experience that Brazilian's welcome, probably not to the extent to which you are speaking regarding the ad though. However, they are proud to be known by their women from my perspective.

I'm sure that many would be embarassed because of the ad and sex equals Brazilian women equals cachaca, however that is the fault of the company and the model who took the ad knowing what she would be representing.

Blondie in Brazil

Blog about my adventures living in Brazil: www.blondieinbrazil.blogspot.com

It's not the model that's the problem

Suzanne Reisman — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:25:37 -0500

It's selling of the sexuality of Brazilian women that I object to. I don't care if women pose nude for ads or magazines or home photos or whatever. That's not the point. As the Ad Age article reports, alcohol ads are banned from explicitly promising sex, yet here we have an ad campaign where this is exactly the premise. Is it because the women are Brazilian and part of an "exotic" culture of eroticism, and those don't count the same way American women do in ads? I just agree with Mary that it plays off stereotypes of Brazilian women, and thus I find the ad campaign offensive. If it didn't brand the woman's ass (or crotch in other ads) as "authentically Brasilian," I might just write it off as another gross ad campaign that panders to the lowest common denominator, as most ads do. But I think this goes beyond that.

Suzanne Reisman, Contributing Editor - Feminism & Gender
Campaign for Unshaved Snatch (CUSS) & Other Rants

It's a Dangerous Place!

MealMixer — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 12:14:13 -0500

We got a Trader Joe when Whole Foods moved up in the world (to a bigger store). I can never walk out of there for less than $50. Here's hoping they build yours quickly!

Marianne : )

I disagree

super des — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:47:33 -0500

I don't think it's exploitation. The woman did it willingly & got paid for it. The only thing being exploited here is men's simple brains and their love of women. Men are the target audience here because statistically, men are more likely to buy alcohol than women. And statistically, straight men are more likely than gay men. So when a model finds work in this ad, good for her. If it hadb't been an ad for rum, she probably would have ended up in another similar one. I say good for her.