SEXIST OR EFFECTIVE?

TV advertising you object to, you can switch off. But when you are stuck behind a bus like this (see below), what are we to do/think? Is this Viacom bus ad ('rear of the year') a clever use of advertising, or is it objectionable?

Some sort of prize is due to Nila, the grocery wholesalers whose vans feature 'sexy' women in connection (tenuous) with a product they are distributing. Is this any different from front cover of Nuts magazine etc? Is it an expression of more liberal or more reactionary attitudes to sex?

The woman who answered the phone at Nila said there were lots of objections to their vans. She didn't like it herself, but she had 'got used to it'. Maybe that is what happens, we may not like it, but we get accustomed to it.

So, in our first artofconversation poll, tell us, are the Nila van images...

a)       effective marketing

b)       sexist

c)    gratuitous

d)  a bit of a turn on ?

                                         

Kevin

Comments

[Holycow]

Good spot - well done - looking forward to reading your blog over the coming weeks. I have noticed something on a parallel in Sao Paulo which is interesting - similar thing but based on Brazil's overly sexualised society leading to an outright ban - fully supported by the population! I think I will vote d) Other - as I think that the other options are too narrow to be really useful. Also it could be a) highly effective marketing - as we are talking about it - the others are not objective enough IMHO. Cheers Mark

[andy]

I've seen those vans too. Effective advertising? Hardly. I thought it was advertising coffee mate. Then I thought it was Nila, or maybe Lavazza... but most blokes surely won't see past the woman's anatomy?

[Neil]

D) Other - a bit of a turn on

[nigel tuffnel]

b) what's wrong with being sexy?

[Derek Smalls]

Nigel, where do I begin?
It's not exactly sexy OR sexist, more like ... sexyist

[Robert]

e) gratuitously effective