Sisley Magazines Racey Ad - Innapropriate?

kerash

First off, I think it's an excellent marketing campaign! Well done to Sisley for causing a stir plus sex sells!
I posted this in the Ladies Lounge because the Ladies on Liveline are going mental over this, they are of the opinion that it sexualises children as the model is very young looking.
I think it's important to note that the model is apparently 19.

So what do you think of this ad?


Some online comments

Sisley Confirms Women Love Cucumbers


share
Buzz

Occasionally write things here on Adrants that could loosely be interpreted as intelligent. Five years ago, we think, was one of those occasions. We were making comment on a Sisley advertising campaign which, as many fashion campaigns do, objectified women.
Flash forward to 2010 and the new Fall/Winter Sisley campaign. We're not sure this one objectifies women but it sure makes them look stupid. Yea, there's the ubiquitous cleavage shot but there's also a woman falling out of a dryer and a woman on the floor having fun with a bunch of cucumbers.
It's kind of sexist and stupid all at the same time. But fashion advertising gets a pass on this. why? Because do we really want to look at fashion as if it were a Sears catalog? No. We want some action and excitement. Even if it it idiotic and pretentiously stupid.

http://www.adrants.com/2010/07/sisley-confirms-women-love-cucumbers.php

mike65

I take you have been listening to Rantline eh Liveline?

krudler

Cucumbers Joe!

nearly everything ranted about on Nanaline is a non event tbf

kerash

mike65 wrote: »

I take you have been listening to Rantline eh Liveline?

krudler wrote: »

Cucumbers Joe!

nearly everything ranted about on Nanaline is a non event tbf

Yes that's what I said in the op.

It's an interesting outside of the liveline.
The photos are blatantly overtly sexy, having not seen them before I wonder what the ladies opinion of them is.
Also many of the photos are of men in (silly) positions involving fruit.

WindSock

Ugh, all those photos are anything but sexy. The clothes are ming too.

mike65

Actually you said Joe Duffy, not Liveline (Duffer is not even hosting the show at the moment)

kerash

They're pretty manky all right, tbh I hardly noticed the clothes!

Apparently the photographer behind it is Terry Richardson and the idea behind the photos is places where real people go, I really dont think the pics reflect real people - real pron maybe..

Richardson has also taken pics of Jennifer Anniston topless and Gisele Bundchen

Those photos are a lot more 'arty' and less trashy and I'd be happy to see them in a magazine.

Looks like sisley's target market are dirty slappers!

rainbow kirby

I personally think that's just silly, more than anything else.

juliancallan

This is just disgraceful.

I mean, look at the lighting in that first photo.
Shocking stuff.

Silverfish

Are they not courgettes?

panda100

kerash wrote: »

First off, I think it's an excellent marketing campaign! Well done to Sisley for causing a stir plus sex sells!

Haven't much of a problem with the photo's tbh. They just look ridiculous.The picture of her with a cougette in her mouth is incredibly tacky, wouldn't really want to buy anything from that brand.

I have a problem with 'sex sells' though, How does that photograph show sex? Maybe Im doing it all wrong but I don't see how such a physical,sensual act between a man and a women is exemplified by a one dimensional photo of some girl rolling around in a whole load of courgettes in a supermarket aisle?

Clothes are pretty mank too so If those clothes really are sellling sex then there not doing a very good job.

southsiderosie

Well, Terry Richardson is a big perv, so this isn't surprising.

That said, I think this is a crappy ad because it's not clear what exactly they are trying to sell. I was actually surprised when I realized this was a clothing ad. Poorly styled, poorly shot.

I don't have any problems with the model, other than the fact that she looks ridiculous. And frankly I've seen worse staggering down Harcourt Street on a Saturday night, so I don't quite get what people have their knickers all in a twist about.

Wibbs

southsiderosie wrote: »

Well, Terry Richardson is a big perv, so this isn't surprising.

If such allegations are true(and they make disturbing reading) then how the hell is someone like him working in the fashion industry? TBH I've heard other stories of well dodgy behaviour in that business. He's not an isolated character. Says all that needs to be said about that business in my humble.

southsiderosie

Wibbs wrote: »

If such allegations are true(and they make disturbing reading) then how the hell is someone like him working in the fashion industry? TBH I've heard other stories of well dodgy behaviour in that business. He's not an isolated character. Says all that needs to be said about that business in my humble.

Well, Roman Polanski admitted to worse, and he is still working (and his work is rewarded with awards from his peers). People who are seen as "creative" and talented often get a pass from their peers - and the public - for their disturbing behavior. I definitely don't agree with it, and frankly I don't think Terry Richardson is that talented, but this attitude towards wayward celebrities seems to be fairly common, unfortunately.

amacachi

LOL, a woman with an object that looks like it could be used for self pleasure, that's so liberating/liberated/shocking/funny/cheeky.

No wonder advertising is in the pan when they're letting 8 year olds come up with the campaigns.

Adhamh

Walking down a street the other day I saw this on a billboard. It may as well have read:

VAGINAL PENETRATION!

VAGINAL PENETRATION!

I for one am sick to my fucking teeth with this stuff.

amacachi

Adhamh wrote: »

Walking down a street the other day I saw this on a billboard. It may as well have read:

VAGINAL PENETRATION!

VAGINAL PENETRATION!

I for one am sick to my fucking teeth with this stuff.

Not anal? Prude.

baby and crumble

I have 3 major issues with this ad.

1) The lighting and production of the photo is crap. seriously. Really, really bad.

2) The clothes are VILE.

3) It just looks stupid.

I have no problem with using sex to sell stuff (well I do a bit but not a major thing, i just think it's lazy) but this is just crass and tacky. i don't think it demeans anyone other than the people involved in producing it.

kerash

panda100 wrote: »

Haven't much of a problem with the photo's tbh. They just look ridiculous.The picture of her with a cougette in her mouth is incredibly tacky, wouldn't really want to buy anything from that brand.

I have a problem with 'sex sells' though, How does that photograph show sex? Maybe Im doing it all wrong but I don't see how such a physical,sensual act between a man and a women is exemplified by a one dimensional photo of some girl rolling around in a whole load of courgettes in a supermarket aisle?

Clothes are pretty mank too so If those clothes really are sellling sex then there not doing a very good job.

Yep it's dumb looking.
I'd say that although the pic does not show a sex act it has an obvious sexual context. A google search is how I came across the photos and this pic is quiet tame in comparison to some of the others.

It's just sad more than anything else.

And while I can appreciate a good looking woman, in this instance I have to say yuck

Toto Wolfcastle

I don't have a problem with the ad, apart from the fact that it's not clear what it is selling. I hope they don't end up pulling it over this, like they did with the (great) Hunky Dorys ads. It's a non-issue.

panda100

janeybabe wrote: »

I don't have a problem with the ad, apart from the fact that it's not clear what it is selling. I hope they don't end up pulling it over this, like they did with the (great) Hunky Dorys ads. It's a non-issue.

I haven't brought Hunky Dorys since that ad.Sick of women being used to sell stuff.

Women's rugby world cup is on Setanta sports at the mo If anyone intrested in watching some fantastic sportswomen. The New Zealand players are amazing athletes,most would give Brian O'Driscoll a run for his money

John_Rambo

amacachi wrote: »

LOL, a woman with an object that looks like it could be used for self pleasure, that's so liberating/liberated/shocking/funny/cheeky.

No wonder advertising is in the pan when they're letting 8 year olds come up with the campaigns.

It's got you talking!

fillefatale

zoegh wrote: »

I have 3 major issues with this ad.

1) The lighting and production of the photo is crap. seriously. Really, really bad.

2) The clothes are VILE.

3) It just looks stupid.

I have no problem with using sex to sell stuff (well I do a bit but not a major thing, i just think it's lazy) but this is just crass and tacky. i don't think it demeans anyone other than the people involved in producing it.

That's the style of his photographs, they're meant to be more 'real'. You know, ironic, setting a fashion shot in a domestic setting, haha :rolleyes:. Terry's photos are meant to cause offense and shock. I personally am not a fan of his.

The clothes are alright, it wouldn't push me to buy them. To be honest if i saw this in the magazine I would have to take a second look to comprehend what was actually going on.

The issue on liveline today was more the young appearance of the model. I don't think she looks that young. It is a bit crude and tacky, but so have many fashion campaigns been in the past and will be in the future. Its just an attempt by a company that has always had a more conservative image to cause a stir.

One of the guys on liveline said the model was being 'abused' by being positioned in this way. That's modeling, your body has a lot to do with selling the product, like any job if she was uncomfortable with what she was being told to do, she could have walked away. Could we not say then that the female nudes of 'traditional' painting (and about 90% of nudes in pre-20th century art and even into the twentieth century were female) were being 'abused'. Women couldn't easily enter into art as a profession, so they were used as models, possibly objectified. Thats another matter, but its what sprang to mind when that man said that today.

This image is explicit but we're bombarded with images of sexuality and bodies everywhere today. I don't see how this image would have any adverse effect on young people or promote the sexualization of children (some of the topics raised on LL today), as long as you raise your children with a good sense of self and whats right or wrong, they'd be sensible enough to understand that this image is not there to encourage certain distasteful modes of behavior. Its a model, she's being paid to model clothes, in a raunchy, trashy way yes. But its not real life, its a set.

I am neither for, or against this image.

metrovelvet

I thought it was an ad for cucumbers.

Callan57

metrovelvet wrote: »

I thought it was an ad for cucumbers.

Glad I'm not the only one ... I thought it was for your 5 a day veggies! Some people see sex everywhere ... filthy, filthy minds

seithon

>.< Her face... she doesn't look normal >.> Seriously tho.. its just a stupid picture.

caprilicious

The photo's look to me like one's taken by a bunch of drunk 17 year olds on a night out :pac:

I seen the ad in a magazine today and its funny, I only copped after reading this thread that I hadn't noticed the clothes when I looked at the ad earlier.
Surely that defeats the purpose if your attention is drawn away from what should be the main subject matter

I wouldn't be enticed to buy the clothes, like an earlier post said it does cry 'skank/slapper' the way they're marketed, they're not portraying a classy image at all.

I don't think they're any more inappropriate an image than a lot of the raunchy music videos that you can see 24/7 on MTV et al

WTF is this one supposed to be about? :eek:

xOxSinéadxOx

I kind of like the idea of it. Sisley usually have weird ideas for ads

like this one I like:D

Xiney

Silverfish wrote: »

Are they not courgettes?

nah, they're american style cucumbers. The ones you have here get sold as "english" cucumbers in america :P

Demonique

Meh, who cares?

metrovelvet

Xiney wrote: »

nah, they're american style cucumbers. The ones you have here get sold as "english" cucumbers in america :P

Courgettes are what Americans call zucchini.

Xiney

metrovelvet wrote: »

Courgettes are what Americans call zucchini.

Yes - interestingly they refer to courgettes by their italian name but aubergine by the english name (egg plant)

Feeona

krudler wrote: »

Cucumbers Joe!

nearly everything ranted about on Nanaline is a non event tbf

Silverfish wrote: »

Are they not courgettes?

metrovelvet wrote: »

I thought it was an ad for cucumbers.

Callan57 wrote: »

Glad I'm not the only one ... I thought it was for your 5 a day veggies! Some people see sex everywhere ... filthy, filthy minds

Xiney wrote: »

nah, they're american style cucumbers. The ones you have here get sold as "english" cucumbers in america :P

metrovelvet wrote: »

Courgettes are what Americans call zucchini.

Xiney wrote: »

Yes - interestingly they refer to courgettes by their italian name but aubergine by the english name (egg plant)

Ah come on lads, where's the unbridled rage at a company using yet another woman in a provocative pose to sell something? Sisley needs you! :pac:

panda100

I love the way this advert sought to diverse opinion on the use of sexual imagery in ad's, yet its all it'd done is wage war on wether their courgettes or cucumbers

@_@

I don't see the problem with this ad.
But then again, all I can focus on are the teeth @_@

Augmerson

I was on my break in work reading a magazine someone left behind, think it was called Gloss? It was all style and fashion. Flicking through, minding my own business and drinking my milk when I saw the picture of the girl with the cucumbers, nearly sprayed the wall with milk when I saw it - wtf?! Was funny to me at the time. But then I'm a man

Catari Jaguar

Saw the poster of the model holding melons up to where her boobs are at the Luas stop. Only it was the Luas stop right outside Alexandra Girl's secondary school.

That's a bit much...

Catari Jaguar

wait, it's an advert for clothes!? I thought it was an ad for eating more fruit and veg... Didn't have a clue who or what Sisley was.

metrovelvet

Feeona wrote: »

Ah come on lads, where's the unbridled rage at a company using yet another woman in a provocative pose to sell something? Sisley needs you! :pac:

Ladies, does the ad really want to make you go out and buy a cucumber?

Silverfish

metrovelvet wrote: »

Ladies, does the ad really want to make you go out and buy a cucumber?

It made me want a courgette and potato bake all day yesterday.

Xiney

It just reminded me of this, to be perfectly honest.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRWjxdvArPE

darad

Hope that girl didnt hurt herself badly when she tripped on all those veggies

Callan57

I'll never be able to look a cucumber in the face again

madrabui

I wouldn't mind the ads if I could just avoid them. The interior of the Luas is plastered with these ads. I was thinking that I would be pretty uncomfortable with the ads at nightime and there were a few drunken rowdy men on board.