Let’s get one thing straight. Sex attracts – always has, probably always will.
But it doesn’t work for everything and doesn’t always sell. And if you get it wrong, it could seriously harm your business.
So when is sexing-up acceptable? Is it justified using the oldest ploy in marketing to sell an essentially dull, but functional, bit of software or a distinctly unsexy insurance policy? Is it the only way you’re going to get anyone pausing long enough to read your ad or tempted to forward your viral email? Does anything go? Whether it’s overt images with titillating flashes of flesh, clever word plays, mere expressions or suggestive body language, or the none-too-subtle use of phallic objects – sex is everywhere and divides as much as conquers.
Rick Blears, a former creative director for a 600-strong, £60m turnover advertising group and now of RMSPR, is adamant that it should be avoided like the plague. “Advertising’s all about finding succinct, original, exciting and reassuring ways to dramatise a product’s USP. What’s a predictable, monotonous and tasteless sexual inference got to do with any of that?”
Only last month Sainsbury’s agreed to place a protective cover over the lads’ mags it has on sale, leaving just the titles visible. This was a direct response to some customers registering discomfort about children being subjected to near-naked, buxom women.
The point is, if you take the approach that sex sells, that’s exactly what you risk – and can you afford to alienate up to half your customer-base or create the view that you’ve cheapened your brand for the sake of the odd double-take?
But it doesn’t have to be that way. The Gossard Wonderbra ‘Hello Boys’ campaign is a great example of getting it right. Its billboards stopped traffic and aroused the attentions of men, but it put women in the driving seat. Seven units were sold every second in its 1994 heyday – 1.6m in that year alone. The classic Cadbury’s Flake TV ads are perhaps an even better example here, where suggestion was everything, despite chocolate bars, unlike bras, having no ostensible link to sex.
What constitutes using sex?
The landscape for sex in advertising has changed. Sexual imagery and implied sexuality defined ads throughout the 1990s, reversing Mary Whitehouse’s puritanical efforts. But consumers are arguably more sophisticated now with higher expectations of the estimated 20,000 messages they face everyday.
Businesses, too, are thinking harder, by and large. But there are always exceptions, those who can’t resist a cheap saucy gag or a gratuitous bit of flesh. If your target audience is 18-24-year-old males you may decide it’s worth it. “It’s a fact of life that a sexual image will attract attention,” says Mike Perls, managing director of marketing and PR agency MC2 and national executive director of the PR Forum. “However, thinking a girl with a chest will sell anything to blokes is a common mistake. The audience is more aware than many give them credit for.”
His company boasts Deloitte, Grant Thornton and Credit Suisse among its clients, and while the agency has used sex or sexuality for numerous campaigns, there are clients where any such element is a non-starter.
Tricia Weener, managing director of Intelligent Marketing, which names Diageo among its clients, says companies have become more responsible across the board as part of their corporate social responsibility (CSR) policies. This is particularly true of the drinks industry, which has introduced its own code to ensure no link is made between alcohol and sexual prowess. The approach may not have filtered down to the smaller and mid-size businesses like yours where CSR policies are often less defined, but it’s certainly worth noting if you aspire to reach the higher echelons and stay on the right side of acceptability.
What does it add to campaigns?
As the Gossard example illustrated, sexy stop-you-dead-in-the-street ads can make a tangible mark on your sales and bottom line.
Club 18-30 was more than happy to be typecast, running with lines such as ‘Beaver Espana’, ‘Laying more than bricks’ and ‘Wake up at the Crack of Dawn’ for its salivating target market. Its adverts were hugely successful at the time, but director of creative ad agency Cuba, which specialises in campaigns for small and mid-size businesses, says 10 years on its not been able to shake its cheap image in a more sophisticated travel arena.
Pot Noodle is another that sailed close to the wind but ultimately got the results, successfully combining humour with sex. It achieved notoriety for some outrageous, but ironic, advertising campaigns, acknowledging through association with grubby sex that consumers feel ‘dirty’ for spurning traditional food for something manufactured and artificial, but ultimately irresistible. Its ‘Slag of All Snacks’ campaign prompted complaints, but the Advertising Standards Authority ruled that it would not cause serious or widespread offence.
Viral marketing, where humour, sex or violence – or all three – are almost prerequisites, is somewhat easier to measure. “We gauge success on the number of people it gets passed on to,” says Louis Halpern, CEO of digital marketing agency Halpern Cowell. “A campaign that’s good will have a viral factor of three. A great one will be 27.”
Agent Provocateur’s founder Serena Rees sanctioned a viral campaign using Kylie Minogue riding a bucking bronco wearing the company’s underwear. At the end of the scene, Kylie asked all the men in the audience to stand, before delivering the mocking closing line, ‘thought not’. It was one of the most successful viral campaigns ever and added millions to the bottom line.
