Question about women and advertising...

[Heretic]

First the story to explain why I'm asking...

We just shot the cd cover for the new CD, and it's going to look great. Our cover model is a well known porn star, so we definitely have the sex appeal angle covered and guys are going to love it!

However, the image itself is not really about sex appeal (even though she appears naked). The message is all about the freedom and natural state of humanity being taken away or censored. It's kind of a political statement about how the people we elect to keep our freedoms secure are the very people that take our freedoms away.

That all said...we are down to a few different pictures, one more artistic...more "angelic" with her looking away from the camera and kind of playing off of the concept. The other is her giving more of a sexy look, more of an outright sex appeal type thing.

So...guys will check out the cover either way, it's a hot, seemingly naked blond...but where is the point where women feel uncomfortable or objectified?? Do any of the ladies here see advertising and dislike it due to it's sex appeal to the point where they won't buy the product?

The point of this is to communicate the message of freedom/nature being defiled and corrupted...so it isn't like we want simulated sex acts or anything...but the discussion over the pictures made me curious of what women think of advertising for guys...

 

[Master Chief]

So... uh...

gonna share some of the photo shoot or what?

 

[Heretic]

I'll share in emails...but she isnt wearing anything on her bottom (which is being cropped out, of course) so I cant post them here.

 

[Master Chief]

As a woman I am very offended EEEeEEeEEeeEEeEEEE

 

[Heretic]

I figure it's no big deal either...just curious. A few decades ago this seemed to be an issue, but maybe society has evolved to the point where no one cares anymore.

 

[Master Chief]

Yeah, I miss that innocence from those eras, where everyone was classy and repressed. I really caught on to the ch-ch-changes when I fell in love with those lesbian singers who made out in the rain for that music video. Or maybe it was more around the time Sir Mix Alot started rappin about juicy, healthy butts. Desensitization is awesome tho.

 

[Tsunulia]

*female enters thread*.......


Hmmmm... I'll just say this. I don't quite care about the whole objectifying women, because (let's face it) if women really cared they wouldn't let themselves be seen in these types of things.


Anywho, if there's a 'naked' person on the cover of something (no matter what it is), it just makes me feel dirty to even look at it. If I don't know about the band or anything I'll just leave it be. The only reason I would ever buy anything with covers like that is if it was from a band I reeeeeally liked and can accept that that's their style. But once I get it home the cd goes in the binder and the case goes on the shelf..... never to be touched again.

 

[ComicChick]

yeah honestly those type of cd covers turn me off

but i'm not against artistic nudes as long as they are tasteful, and the keyword is artistic.

 

[Motown Marvel]

so, the image of this naked chick is posed and cropped so no nudity shows even though the image is supposed to be defiant against the idea of censorship of nudity?

PM me some of the shots if you want an informed opinion.

 

[Paroxysm]

ok.........

 

[Heretic]

so, the image of this naked chick is posed and cropped so no nudity shows even though the image is supposed to be defiant against the idea of censorship of nudity?

PM me some of the shots if you want an informed opinion.

I'm not sure I have to explain this...but if we showed the goods we'd be in some pretty serious trouble. The image isn't about defiance, it's about showing that we are victims of it, with little control over it...and that itd be nice if we could live a freer existence (this is music we're talking about, so its more about freedom of speech in general rather than nudity in particular).

 

[Watson]

*female enters thread*.......


Hmmmm... I'll just say this. I don't quite care about the whole objectifying women, because (let's face it) if women really cared they wouldn't let themselves be seen in these types of things.

So the women who do appear in ads and nude photo's are representative of every women in the world?

If I follow your logic correctly, stereotypes and gender/racial roles exist because the group effected "allow" them to exist .

 

[Motown Marvel]

I'm not sure I have to explain this...but if we showed the goods we'd be in some pretty serious trouble. The image isn't about defiance, it's about showing that we are victims of it, with little control over it...and that itd be nice if we could live a freer existence (this is music we're talking about, so its more about freedom of speech in general rather than nudity in particular).

this is all probably gonna sound like im being "difficult" but its just my honest opinion:

first, out of curiosity, who is going to give you trouble if you show nudity on your album cover? and is getting in trouble for expressing your beliefs really a bad thing? if you really believe in this message, then convey it in whatever fashion you feel ideal, no matter the perception of others and the trouble it may cause. people wanna get pissy over something as simple and harmless as a naked chick? fine. screw'em.

secondly, its kind of pointless and even almost hypocritical if you're wanting to make a statement about the natural existence and freedoms of people yet arent willing to fully depict the natural existence and freedoms of people. you're yielding to the exact issue you're wanting to (for lack of a better word) rebel against.

third, i got your PM with the photos. good photos. it could make a good cover. but the photos seem to depict the exact opposite of what you stated in your original post.

 

[Heretic]

Who would get us in trouble? Websites and magazines could refuse the advertising, stores could refuse to carry it. Women could be offended, as could parents...

As far as the pictures saying the opposite of what I said they did...not really. The cover image will be the american flag and the constitution and all, and then the model is naked, but covered up. I admit...some pics are a not anything we would even want to use, but a few hit the intent of what we wanted.

 

[Kelly]

I don't buy CD anymore, haven't for years, so I never see the covers...I buy from Amazon and download...

BUT, for clarification...

Is the band a girl band or something?

If its guys how are they being hurt by this? Because they can't get their fill of nudies???? I don't get it...

Are you pulling from "Free Speech"...cause I don't remember much from my Constitutional Law class in college, but nude women never came up in a discussion as being in the Constitution, even though maybe they were in the hotel down the street waiting for the guys to sign the damn thing and move on down the road to some bedtime stories...

 

[Heretic]

Its an all guy band, female cover model.

Really we just want to make sure that the female fans dont see the cover and get ticked off and think it's exploitative. The intent of course is to be sexy...thats a given. Thats more important to me than stores not carrying it even...I dont want women to see the image and form the opinion that we are objectifying women or against equal rights or what have you...we are going with a sexy cover...the question is if women would be cool if we embraced the sexy side (which as I mentioned above, the pics came out a bit sexier than I intended) or if we should go more artsy...

 

[Motown Marvel]

like i said, if you're willing to compromise and censor your statement for the sake of other people's sensibilities and potential record sales/promotion, then you're not only guilty of what you're preaching against, but i would also question your commitment to your beliefs. what i would recommend doing, is finding a way to fully convey your message that doesnt require censorship of a nude form.

as for your intentions of the image: you have a very sexy porn star model nude with an idealized figure and teased hair with her body slathered wildly in paint(?) grabbing at her breasts with a sultry look on her face. no amount of american imagery in the background is going to tone down or distract from such a highly sexualized image. especially with the words "a more perfect union" written on her stomach, it could very easily come off as offensive and objectifying of women.

and again, im fine with the image. i dont know what kind of music you make, but most music is all about sexuality, its a part of music. which makes things like this entirely appropriate (and the conservative backlash it could cause even more appropriate). but to me, this isnt conveying the message your intending.

if you really wanted to convey what you wanted, i would have suggested getting a completely normal and average couple doing a normal everyday activity in a picture perfect american suburb but completely in the nude. i.e. riding bikes down the street, walking the dog, getting the morning mail, reading the news on the porch, etc...

 

[Heretic]

You misinterpret in a few ways...

The cover of a CD is kind of a snapshot of what the cd is trying to present. It is not the sole responsibility of the cover to convey that message. The liner notes, the other pictures inside the cd, and most importantly the lyrics drive your point across. If we had simply went nude with the cover (sexy or normal) then no one would ever get a chance to hear the message that is presented in the songs, since no one would accept advertising, no store would carry it etc. The message of the cd is in the lyrics, and the attempt is to capture the mood in the cover shot. Not showing full frontal nudity does not in any way affect the concept of the album itself, since half the songs on it are about censorship and the government. The lyrics get the job done.

Furthermore, it's music...putting a normal guy and girl on a cover will do nothing for sales...putting a hot blond on the cover will. In a world where few people buy cds anymore, the cover has to get noticed. Again, it cant be noticed if no one can see it...and if it isnt eye catching, then no one will care to see it. There is nothing interesting about normalcy.

The pictures I sent you are obviously not the finished cover art....I see that you are a purist...but this is a young hard rock band, with young hard rock fans...you cant put Ben Franklin on the cover. You have to mess with the concept to make it interesting...and our way of doing that was to put the girl and the constitution together and have it dirty her up. Of course, we havent added any of the other images yet, so you dont see that quite yet.

I dont have a problem with sex appeal myself....but this band has a pretty big female fanbase, and the idea was to...well...objectify women without objectifying women. If that makes any sense. When you see a commercial for shampoo it almost always objectifies women...but its shampoo...you cant go too far without ticking people off. With rock music you are given a much more free reign (which is why we dont have a normal person doing normal things) but there comes a point where the female fans might be turned off. Or maybe there isnt...if I had the answer I wouldnt have asked the question.

 

[Motown Marvel]

but people arent gonna be like "wow, im offended by this cover....but you know what, maybe the lyrics will prove otherwise." when people look at this cover, all they're seeing is the cover, not the lyrics or liner notes.

and having a normal couple on the cover can be entirely captivating and interesting if done right. like you said, "mess with the concept". but frankly, it sounds like your more interested in having a sexy cover that grabs peoples attention, which is totally cool. but by doing so, you seem to be doing it at the expense of your "message" and taking the risk of offending people. again, im totally cool with this. i get what you're seeing, im just telling you how others are going to see it since thats what you wanted to know.

 

[AndThePickles]

I highly doubt people are going to look at your cover and see the "message" you're trying to portray, sorry They're going to see a naked chick, and think, "a naked chick, hot!" if they're a man. If they're a woman, they may be turned off by it and think it's stupid to objectify women by placing a random nude lady on the cover, or roll their eyes, or just not care.

If you didn't want people to think, "hot, naked woman!" why not have a man, or a woman and a man?

 

[bell110]

What type of music do you play? Are you a metal band or a boy band or what? Also, send me the pics, so I can study this issue further :wink:

 

[Heretic]

but frankly, it sounds like your more interested in having a sexy cover that grabs peoples attention, which is totally cool. but by doing so, you seem to be doing it at the expense of your "message" and taking the risk of offending people. again, im totally cool with this. i get what you're seeing, im just telling you how others are going to see it since thats what you wanted to know.

You're right!

The band has a history of political activism, so their current fans will get the political message immediately. However, we are going "mainstream" and going to go after college kids and stuff. Those people dont give a darn about politics, they just want to party and have fun. This is ABSOLUTELY an attempt to go after those people (and all of the non political songs are as well). We know the current fans will get the underlying intent...and the hope is that college kids will just see a hot chick and think it's cool.

Going over some of the pictures, we were laughing about how some would end up looking like a glam band cover...and so we just started talking about what the current line is in advertising where women notice and think it's "wrong" or whatever.

We know the current fans will get it. We dont care if drunk 22 year old guys get it, as long as they think the girl is hot...it is literally just a question of what society deems to be objectifying.

 

[Heretic]

I highly doubt people are going to look at your cover and see the "message" you're trying to portray, sorry They're going to see a naked chick, and think, "a naked chick, hot!" if they're a man. If they're a woman, they may be turned off by it and think it's stupid to objectify women by placing a random nude lady on the cover, or roll their eyes, or just not care.

If you didn't want people to think, "hot, naked woman!" why not have a man, or a woman and a man?

Again...the band has a history of political activism. Their current fans WILL understand the meaning.

if guys look at it and go "a naked chick, hot!" then that's all I care about. It will mean something totally different to them than it will the bands current fans.

I am aware that women may be turned off by it...which is why i asked. Women dont get angry when they see a *****e package with a naked model turned to the side...its accepted. The question was more of where the line is...because I want to walk up to that line and stick a toe over, thats rock n roll.

 

[AndThePickles]

If your main question is whether you'll be crossing a line or almost crossing one, then I think no. Nude women/even the concept of exploiting women is nothing new. In fact, it's so not new that my first thought as a woman who saw a "naked woman cover" would likely be, "well, that's cliche" rather than be offended lol. I think that anyone who would be offended wouldn't likely be anyone listening to rock music in the first place.

 

[AndThePickles]

Again...the band has a history of political activism. Their current fans WILL understand the meaning.

I mean a general audience. I assumed it wasn't your current fans that you were concerned about.