Month: February 2013

Nancy Huang wrote an article discussing the ethics about the idea that “sex sells”. There is no doubt about the truth in this statement, but as she quite aptly asks, “does that make it right?” As a feminist, I can’t help but be offended at certain ads which quite unashamedly objectify women. But there is a fine line between what is morally right and wrong. And what can be defined as “sexual liberation” or “exploitation”? To further delve into this topic, I would like to present two cases:

1. Kim Kardashian

This is a celebrity that has become famous for well, sex. She shot to fame in 2007 due to her sex tape. Since then she has endorsed a plethora of products including shoes, bags, skin care products, candles, workout tapes, and even salads, just to name a few.

Eating salad in a bathtub. How practical.

She is her own brand- the “Kardashian brand”. While high quality products that sell class and prestige (like Chanel) would not associate with her, there is no doubt that she has proliferated the media world to a staggering degree. The truth is, the marketing world has become rather trashy and consumers respond to her eagerly. Personally, I feel that with each product she provocatively runs her fingers across; she is selling out her own gender.

2. Thigh Advertisements:

A Japanese marketing firm has introduced the tactic of “thigh marketing”, where sexy young girls wear stickers of whatever they are promoting across their thighs, in the gap between the hem of a short skirt, and high socks. Those eligible to become “thigh models” must be suitably attractive and have a sizeable amount of friends or followers on a social media platform. I know many would disagree with me (some would compare it to stripping), but I actually find this form of sexy guerilla marketing rather innovative, and do not have a serious problem with it. It’s certainly a modern twist on the traditional exploitation.

What is the correct moral stance to take on sex in marketing? Is this issue even relevant anymore? The whole concept that “sex sells” certainly is a grey area, although I believe our society has become so acclimatised to it, that it would be near impossible to abolish “sex” as a marketing tactic.

During one of the marketing classes, we analyzed the bottled water phenomenon. I found this product especially interesting, as bottled water is essentially identical. Therefore what really determines a bottled water company’s success is its ability to market.

When consumers buy bottled water they are basically buying the brand image whether it be through sexual imagery (Perrier) or through its eco-friendly approach (Dasani). Many brands focus on the perception of origin and purity (i.e. Fiji water claims to be “untouched by man”) projecting images of glaciers and tropical rain forests. Other brands may try the social conscious route and advocate a cause such as breast cancer research.

A key marketing factor is the packaging of the product itself- its innovative design, contributes significantly in selling a product. Let us turn our attention to hypothetical product of ‘air’. The Gruen Transfer (a television show that comments on various marketing phenomenon) has created 2 television advertisements for this product.

This video does a brilliant job of demonstrating how a successful marketing mix can create the need for a product, that logically, should have none. One can see the parallels between both products, in that they’re easily accessible, for no (or next to no) cost. The first advertisement plays on the affective component, while the second advertisement, with its length explanation, appeals to consumers’ cognitive reasoning. Thus the first advertisement is particularly poignant, as it plays upon human emotion, and I too, felt that I needed this unnecessary product. The ‘Zephyr’ is a beautifully packaged product, that projects images of prestige and perfection, empathizing with my busy, and often suffocating life style.

Although tap water is only a fraction of the price of bottled water, many consumers are willing to pay extra for this seemingly unjustified luxury, as it is convenient and because each brand of water reflects upon the consumers’ image of themselves.