Provocative / Offensive Ads #1

[Paulbpc]

jimmy choo

adpulp.com

 

[Paulbpc]

There is no excuse for an ad like this:

my god someone needs to sue them. That's disgusting.

 

[Scrofulous]

Oh, bugger! Snopes.com apparently has some sort of hotlinking foiler that I didn't notice before. Unfortunately, I can't seem to edit my previous post now so I'll just post it again with the correct picture in place:

This Starbucks™ poster caused quite the angry stir when it was posted shortly after 9/11:

You can read an analysis of the ad and the furor around it from the source of the image—the always sensible Snopes.com.

Basically some people thought the word "collapse" combined with the image of a flier about to hit two towering objects was
a horrible, tasteless joke about 9/11.

But there was no malice intended by Starbucks, it was just an unfortunate coincidence that riled up the mob. At any rate, Starbucks soon took down the posters and continued the tumorous spread of its neo-opium dens.

 

[Djavanjmiles]

The Versace ad in post #153 is kinda pretty. I don't see how that can offend someone.

 

[Trista]

Sadly, nudity of any form is considered offensive to a good deal of the population and while in the ad it is shown to where nothing bad was shown and it looked like a statue, a lot of people could be offended. There are people who would be offended even if he was in briefs or boxers!

 

[SophieKawaii]

I love the Jimmy Choo ad, it's just.. great.

 

[MakeUpJunkie]

The Versace ad in post #153 is kinda pretty. I don't see how that can offend someone.

This isn't only for offensive ads- its also for provocative ones. While its not offensive to some, theres no denying its provacotive.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Oh, bugger! Snopes.com apparently has some sort of hotlinking foiler that I didn't notice before. Unfortunately, I can't seem to edit my previous post now so I'll just post it again with the correct picture in place:

This Starbucks™ poster caused quite the angry stir when it was posted shortly after 9/11:


You can read an analysis of the ad and the furor around it from the source of the image—the always sensible Snopes.com.

Basically some people thought the word "collapse" combined with the image of a flier about to hit two towering objects was
a horrible, tasteless joke about 9/11.

But there was no malice intended by Starbucks, it was just an unfortunate coincidence that riled up the mob. At any rate, Starbucks soon took down the posters and continued the tumorous spread of its neo-opium dens.

I actually think that it IS a reference to 9/11. But it's subtle and beautiful, IMO, simply turning a very scary event into a peaceful fairy tale like image. References don't have to be malicious.

 

[min-SH]

That Lee ad is just ewwwwww!

 

[frenchieLaChat]

So rude

Someone mentioned the puma ad a while back


from museumofhoaxes

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/permalink/fake_puma_ad_mystery_solved/

 

[Uchina]

^ooo be careful it doesn't get on your clothes! I HATE when that happens.

 

[frenchieLaChat]

Hehe

Patrick Cox
www.barbelith.com
Just your average day at the gym.

Right enough of looking at rude things back to work.

 

[iluvjeisa]

Re Puma - The outfits for suckers, I guess. Or is it a power statement that she doesn't swallow? Geez, really sick.

Of course it was a fake ad:

What really happened - a small Eastern European agency affiliated with Saatchi & Saatchi created the ads on spec, trying to win business with a PUMA subsidiary. They got nothing and emailed the ads to friends; from that point it snowballed. As you can guess, when the PUMA powers-that-be decided to get all corporate on the blogosphere, the whole thing exploded. Poor Pete M.'s (PUMA GC in the US) email inbox exploded with junk after that, with his name being on the cease and desist. No "Brazilian Maxim", no evil master plan (they're real but we'll say they're fake), but online store sales were up like CRAZY for a couple of weeks. Too bad we didn't even have the shoes in the ads in stock!

 

[kanita]

Oh, bugger! Snopes.com apparently has some sort of hotlinking foiler that I didn't notice before. Unfortunately, I can't seem to edit my previous post now so I'll just post it again with the correct picture in place:

This Starbucks™ poster caused quite the angry stir when it was posted shortly after 9/11:

*Please do not quote images

You can read an analysis of the ad and the furor around it from the source of the image—the always sensible Snopes.com.

Basically some people thought the word "collapse" combined with the image of a flier about to hit two towering objects was
a horrible, tasteless joke about 9/11.

But there was no malice intended by Starbucks, it was just an unfortunate coincidence that riled up the mob. At any rate, Starbucks soon took down the posters and continued the tumorous spread of its neo-opium dens.

This is the only ad on this thread I find offensive.

 

[iluvjeisa]

This is the only ad on this thread I find offensive.

How so? You mean for the 9/11 similarity?

 

[kanita]

This Marc Jacobs ad has taken a tiny bit of heat lately. Out of context, I see how it might be a little bewildering. It seems to be a bit of performance art, a step by step process as more and more makeup disappears. However, from my understanding, this step in the process has not been published in American magazines

:

In Holland there is an tradition where Sinterklaas (SantaClause) brings around gifts, but this 'Sinterklaas' has people who help him. These are white man painted black or brown with an afro-like wig, big red lips, and a gold earing. These man are considerd 'black', they tell kids these men are 'black'. These 'black' men (called 'pieten') are the ones that are supposed to punish the kids when they were naughty.

I find this quite offencive.

 

[kanita]

How so? You mean for the 9/11 similarity?

Yes, I find it quite disrespectful.

 

[Spike413]

Honestly, I don't find the starbucks ad all that offensive for the simple reason that my first thoughts have absolutely nothing to do with sept. 11 or the twin towers.

Yes, after reading that report I can see why the word collapse, and the timing of the posters could be construed as offesive and inappropriate, but other then that there's nothing that screams controversy.

Until I read that it was published back in 2002 I was thinking it was just a bunch of hypersensitive activists complaining about it.

 

[Erin]

^ I agree. I took no offense to it, and to do so, to me, is reaching. We coudl find 9/11 references in many things if that Starbucks ad is deamed offensive...

 

[frenchieLaChat]

I'm not sure if I posted this correctly or it was taken off but i'm reposting so take it off if needed.
Anyway this thread especially the Marc Jacob poster reminds me of ghost world and the cook's or coon's chicken poster.


www.matchcovers.com

ENID
Well, I got the idea when I was doing
some research and I discovered that
Cook's Chicken used to be called
Coon's Chicken, and so I decided to
do my project based on this discovery
as kind of a comment on racism...
and the way racism is whitewashed
over in our culture...

ROBERTA
Did you actually do this painting?

ENID
Well, no - it's more like a "found
art object."

ROBERTA
And how do you think this addresses
the subject of racism?

ENID
It's complicated... I guess I'm trying
to show how racism used to -- more
out in the open and now it's hidden,
or something...

ROBERTA
And how does an image like this help
us to see that?

ENID
I'm not sure... I mean...
(thinks)
I guess because when we see something
like this it seems really shocking
and we have to figure out why it's
so shocking?