+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 41 to 46 of 46

Thread: The 2 ad campaigns

  1. #41
    I love my sailor. Cindirella's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    US/Europe
    Age
    36
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by Duxxy
    the woman to his right was from NetJets ( I don't recall her title) and the man to his left was the Marketing Director from NetJets... so they really were presenting directly to the client. The gentlemen that Amy and Ereka spoke with were the Prez and VP of NetJets...
    If one of the judges and another person in this process were really from NetJets, didn't Sam have an idea about that, except for the guys wouldn't even listen to him? Maybe Sam knows more than we thought and the guys are just trying too hard to shut him down purely because he is not as mass-productive as they are, but more of a thinker...

  2. #42
    FORT Fogey
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Flown the coop
    Age
    30
    Posts
    2,947
    okay, you lost me cindirella

  3. #43
    Starbucks is your friend Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Orygun
    Posts
    12,166
    I honestly didn't find the women's campaign to be offensive, and for the short time they had, and the instructions they were given from Donnie, I think they definately deserved to win the contest.

    However, I think the idea itself would be misplaced to the corporate audience in the "real world". It assumes that most all decision makers are men, and that is not as true anymore at all. Secondly, in this world where corp execs are now fearful of being arrested for any misstep or anything that might look like misappropriation of investor/shareholder funds, the willingness of a CEO or CFO to justify the additional express of private travel to the Board is not helped with an ad campaign that focuses on sex, and not benefits of the service.
    "George Oscar Bluth II, aka GOB, featured magician in the best selling videotape, "Girls With Low Self Esteem" invites you to enter his world.
    -- Arrested Development, Season III

  4. #44
    Rest in peace Johnny Cash sagemama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Outside the mainstream
    Age
    44
    Posts
    49
    I think that both of the ad campaigns were sexist- the only difference being that the women's campaign was also more sexual.
    Both campaigns were sexist, in my opinion, simply because they both assumed they were addressing men.
    And look who came to view it? A female executive from the client's company. mmmhhhmmm.

  5. #45
    daydream believer oneTVslave's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    in the hizzy
    Age
    42
    Posts
    3,776
    Quote Originally Posted by sagemama
    I think that both of the ad campaigns were sexist- the only difference being that the women's campaign was also more sexual.
    Both campaigns were sexist, in my opinion, simply because they both assumed they were addressing men.
    And look who came to view it? A female executive from the client's company. mmmhhhmmm.

    Wow, very good point sagemama. I can't believe that didn't even occur to me...
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.
    - Albert Einstein

  6. #46
    He activates my yummy!!!! yourefired's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    In front of my TIVO
    Posts
    2,082
    Quote Originally Posted by oneTVslave
    Okay, I have a question:

    When did the client say it was too sexy? I thought that the three people they presented to were all advertising people who worked for Deutsch (or whatever it was called), and the client wasn't even in the room. The only time they met with the client was when Amy and Erika went to talk to them in the beginning - or that is what I thought. Did I misunderstand what was going on? Just curious...

    MrRealityShow, you made a great point. It wasn't so much about the actual ad itself, but about the process they went through (talking to the client, presentation) and for them to show if they were creative and willing to take risks by trying something different. After all, it is not as if the contestants were all in advertising. My guess is that in a real life situation they would have a)been very familiar with the client and what kind of thing they wanted and b)probably prepared a few different ideas or angles to present to the client. Given the short time frame, they had to pick one idea and make the most of it.

    One more point: I think that trying to turn the tables in this scenario and saying what if the men had used photos that looked like female anatomy isn't really a fair comparison. In my experience, it seems that men are not at all shy about their private parts and take every opportunity to talk about them, name them, flaunt them, joke about them, etc, while women seem to be more reserved about that area of their bodies (in general - of course I realize there are exceptions). Just think of the whole "johnson" line of jokes in the Austin Powers movies. So the use of phallic imagery does not come as much of a shock or seem as risque to me as the opposite would be. (Once again, see the Joe Camel ad another poster posted in this thread).

    Just my opinions, I certainly can respect that some people might find the ads offensive, and I don't know that I would have gone with it if it were my company. But I applaud the women for their boldness and ability to try something daring and stand out...
    The client implied that it was too sexy at the meeting (facial expressions most especially). It really seemed like they didn't like it at all.

    And the actual claim came out in the New York Post this week. Netjets said they could not use the print work because it was way too sexy for their image. They do plan to use a modified version of the commercial, though.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.