I have seen a couple of recent posts expressing distain at sexual images used in advertising. These posts argue that they are not offended by the sexual images but they are offended by the implication that advertisers believe these sexual images help to seek products. They believe that advertiser are treating them as hormone-driven, manipulatable, children, who can be persuaded to by anything if you put it next to a half naked woman.
I have news for these critics. The advertisers are correct. We are hormone-driven, manipulatable, children, who can be persuaded to by anything if you put it next to a half naked woman. Otherwise advertisers would not do it. I know many people in the ad business. For as time, I lived with one and hung out with folks in this industry frequently. The one and only reason they use sex in advertising is that it works – very well.
If you, follow bloggers, were to say that the images offended you or the objectification of women (or men) offended you, I could see merit in your point. But to be offended because you feel the ads insult their intelligence This is nonsense. We are sexual and we respond to sexual images and associations. Moreover, we have sexual desires and image insecurities and ads effectively play to both our lusts and insecurities. If this were not true, the ads would be gone.