Everyone has blogged about the "DG racy ad" story in the last week and I have held back my comments until now. I found the photo of the racy ad online at the end of last week and blogged/posted it only because I thought it was hot and that it would hold some readership (and by that I mean viewership for a weekend that was I going away). I wasn't the first nor the last but I do believe that their ad campaign is actually when viewed in its entirety, not that bad. In fact, it got your attention and more importantly the media's, which I do remember from my days in marketing classes is their hope and dream. The "hair down there look" is honestly.. racy, overtly sexual, pushing the limit, will never been worn on a street in public, but hot as hell. All of the free publicity over it seems to be for nothing. No one wears low rise pants that low. In fact, DG's ad campaign this summer season was basically on the idea of "how low can you go" so this doesn't seem to be that surprising to me. And even though I think that DG is trying to create a trend with it, I am waiting (ever so patiently) to see someone do it (and the gorgeous guy, not the fat clueless loser) and then walk into a very hip bar and pretend that everything is fine. And then.. I will wear my jeans exactly as shown.
To give you the view of a red wing state we don't need (by that I mean the conservatives) check out: HoustonChronicle.com - Dolce & Gabbana ads have sunk to a new low which basically starts off with looking at how Calvin Klein moved fashion photography to the present day with 6 story high, Nair smooth, waifish models showing us their underwear to DG showing us some hair. CK crossed a boundary line for sure. DG just played the game. The idea that DG sunk to a new low is just pure crap. And the idea gross? Come on! Woman flaunt their breasts in every which way from Sunday. Who cares if a guy has hair and is willing to let his jeans hang so low that it shows? Is it sex appeal? Absolutely! Is it new? Hell no!
You know, I look at so many NSFW images that I would not have really noticed that there was something different about the ad, had there not been all the hoopla. That is tame compared to some of the stuff I see daily. Wait, did I just out myself as a perv? I think I did.
Posted by: Kia | August 29, 2005 at 03:53 AM
I gotta say, the ad is hot. Its racy. but its not porn. Soo its a little hair. Woopty!
Ive seen some of theo ther ads that lead up to this one, Though not a typical series mind you, it is progressive
I think we all need to just open our eyes and grow up. Stop denying ourselves and accept things the way they are.. the way we are.
Posted by: djhinn | August 29, 2005 at 12:55 AM
I love the ad from a marketing perspective in terms of generating interest (furore!).
But, I think the sex appeal is there with the B/W photography and the sculpted torso ...
By the way - any chance Frank you can explain the Red/blue state thing? I am over here in Europe so don't understand the reference.
Posted by: SJ | August 28, 2005 at 05:35 PM
I really don't see anything wrong. The old Versace ads are more risque really. While I do own a pair of super ultra low risers, I won't wear it like that. But that's advertisement for you. They have to exaggerate it! It's suppose to grab your attention, just like you said. And honestly, pubes are sexy, shaved pubes are just for porn stars honestly.
Posted by: Groove | August 27, 2005 at 10:26 PM
I think you said it best. The ad does get your attention. I've not seen the entire ad,so I can't give my full opinion. The guys are very hot. The guy on the far right with his pubes on display is the hottest, in my opinion.
Posted by: Charles B. | August 27, 2005 at 02:25 PM