Prada and Fendi and Coach! Oh my!

Of course advertising impacts me, and everyone else. In a society where there are hundreds of products to satisfy any demand, only products with the best reputations get top dollar.

There is no reason to pay $65,000 for a handbag. But in the words of Sex in the City's Samantha Jones:

"It's not a handbag! It's a f*****g Birkin!"

That's the world we live in. Americans will pay anything for the privilege to wear an advertisement on their chest, their pant legs, their feet, so long as its has some level of popularity and good repute.

I could get on my high horse and rant about how immoral it is to squander money on unnecessarily luxurious luxury items, but I myself have owned three iPods in my life, and I'm not yet sixteen. I have a certain level of disdain for pettiness, and yet I own several Ralph Lauren sweaters, a Macbook, a Tiffany bracelet, and a Coach wristlet. And, in all honesty, I can't say that these possessions don't bring me a certain amount of pleasure.

It just goes to show the level of hypocrisy that is acceptable in our society. And why shouldn't it be? Advertising is a multi-billion dollar industry.

It's not about to go anywhere.

Gasp.

The full story can be found here.

But the concept is simple enough; there were complaints about the overt sexuality of a couple of photographs in an Abercrombie & Fitch, and the local Virginia Beach police officials confiscated them.  The issue is not so much the idea of the confiscation, but the ads which are being targeted.  Recently, there have been several similar occurrences, all concerning ads that have relatively little sexual content.

No one has any business targeting ads like these, which can hardly be deemed sexual, or even too revealing of the human body, an almost unhealthy taboo in American culture.  This campaign, while not exactly conservative, is more focused on style than sexuality.  I think that the complaints which led to the confiscation of the posters stem from Abercrombie & Fitch's history (legislation has been passed in the Senate in reaction to a racy 2003 Quarterly photo shoot).

The other thing which might make being offended by an upper buttock or a little too much skin more understandable is that this campaign and the store that the photographs were removed from is aimed at teenagers.  

And since these ads are aimed at younger people, opposed to sex-themed Dolce and Gabanna ads, which target adults, any promiscuity is going to be objectionable.  As much as teens might protest that they don't care one way or another, parents will always do everything that they can to protect their children and Abercrombie & Fitch might want to keep that in mind next time they launch an advertising campaign.  The last thing any company wants is to be the subject of a brand boycott.

Justin. Pepsi. Super Bowl.

One ad that I thought was particularly effective, was the Justin Timberlake Pepsi ad.

I think that the ad was one of the 'big' commercials that Super Bowl watchers have come to expect. Though this year seems to mark the end of truly fantastic Super Bowl commercials, I think that this ad fulfills some of the expectations that people have to see real celebrities advertise a product.

The commercial achieved everything that it was supposed to; it glamorized Pepsi by tying it to attractive bikini-clad girls sunbathing in their backyards and to meeting the (as is emphasized by the ad) entirely fabulous Justin Timberlake. Entertainment is supplied in the way that many people enjoy seeing a celebrity get beat up, especially in a comic manner, and also in the way that ordinary people can have contact with a famous person in the meantime.  

The music (also from Justin) fit the ad perfectly, and increased the upbeat nature of the ad. It also reinforced the message of the advertisement: if you drink Pepsi, you'll get free music.