Does sex really sell?

[Brian Turner]

Does anyone else here think that sex has been totally oversold – that the consumer market has effectively grown weary of constant sexual innuendo in marketing, and that product sales are ultimately suffering as a result?

I've certainly noticed that the more implicit the sexual connotations, the less likely I am to actually notice the product name or brand.

I made a mental note to remember that one time with a series of poster ads that went up in our town a few years ago. They all showed Kate Moss in the shower, with only a few bubbles to hide her complete nudity.

Every time I passed that poster I looked to see if the nipples really were covered!

On the one hand that may sound sad, but in human terms I was simply testing out to see how explicit the sexual imagery was.

And I had no idea of what the brand name was.

The problem is that the more explicit the sexual content of a promotion, then the more likely that the consumer mind may be directed away from noticing the product, and instead only noticing the sexual content.

I would certainly argue that sexual imagery is more likely to distract the modern male consumer from the product.

Does anyone else agree? Or am I completely mistaken?

[flash32]

I agree and you put it very well.

Flash32

[becki]

If sex doesn't sex then why is it so prolific in advertising? Surely these agencies have statistics to back up their usage of sex as a marketing device?

[altyfc]

I would have to say that it depends on your target audience and what it is your selling. As Becki says, if it didn't, then it wouldn't be so prevalent.

Aaron

[trevHCS]

Originally Posted by Brian Turner

Does anyone else here think that sex has been totally oversold – that the consumer market has effectively grown weary of constant sexual innuendo in marketing, and that product sales are ultimately suffering as a result?

I suspect one of the main factors is that sex based images are so common place these days from the top-of-the-shelf mag's in the petrol station to the TV that we don't consciously notice them anymore or at least not as much as we did.

This could however be a great tool for the advertisers to use against us as we're probably more likely to take in the whole advert rather than either shying away from it or concentrating on one bit therefore we'll sub-consciously take in the entire message.

I'm only guessing there, but since we feel more comfortable with nudity and related sexual related things we may even spend more time taking in the advert as arrouses a curiosity compared to an advert for umbrellas being held by someone in a long grey coat for example.

I've certainly noticed that the more implicit the sexual connotations, the less likely I am to actually notice the product name or brand.

Are you over 25 by any chance?

I would certainly argue that sexual imagery is more likely to distract the modern male consumer from the product.

That of course assumes all the adverts are aimed at blokes. For example, not sure if you're in the US or UK, but did you ever see a series of ad's who's catch-line was "Hello Boys".

It was I think an advert for Wonderbra's which of course isn't directly aimed at us (well not most of us anyway ) but was apparently very successful. Not really sure of the psychology behind it but I'd guess theres something in there aimed at women - reverse sexual psychology or something.

Oh and for those who didn't see it - I believe it's supposed to have been responsible for more car crashes than any other poster ad - most were blokes running into the back of eachother also!

Trev

[Brian Turner]

Good points overall.

[altyfc]

When we finally launch www.aardvarksex.net we shall provide you with a conclusive answer to the question.

Aaron

[Suzanne]

It's not sex that's being sold, it's attraction, dears. There's a real difference. Advertisers aren't selling sex with the product or model but attraction to the model by proxy to the product. The attraction is different across the target audience age ranges. Obviously with younger target groups that attraction has to take a more sexually aware approach to appeal to those hormone churning pubescents and close-post adolescents. It's more overtly sexual because the language of attaction for target ages 14-24 is more physical that for say 50-60 where companionship rather than physical lust is the main determinant of attraction.

[Brian Turner]

Actually, that's a good point of distinction.

[Suzanne]

Why thank you. I'm blonde but I got brains. Dangerous huh?