Much of my recent postings have been around the subject of “taste”.
This is taste in terms of what advertising should and shouldn’t say and suggest around traditionally taboo subjects. As well as examples of poor taste propped up by the excuse of irreverence and tongue in cheek (Lynx being a shocker)
Some would argue that taste is a subjective measure of what we as individuals deem appropriate as advertising.
I think that the question of taste or advertising standards is more than that. We need to arbitrate in these matters on behalf of the mass market majority who are exposed to the advertising – particularly when it is on TV. Rather than crushing creativity, this should actually prompt more ingenious, imaginative solutions to communication.
The creative community can argue that we should break these taboos – use the word vagina when discussing feminine hygiene. Show explicit imagery to demonstrate problems (accidents / disease etc). Many might suggest that we are lessening the creative impact by embargoing these words and images.
At the risk of sounding conservative on creativity, I don’t agree.
I think that this ad is a beautifully produced ad. It captures the attention and the dialogue is relevant and motivating to the target. The last thing it needed was the seemingly gratuitous inclusion of the word vagina. I don’t think this inclusion adds anything to comprehension or awareness of the message. It just shocks the casual viewer, as in “did they just say that”?
Are we to imagine that the target didn’t get the message and needed to be alerted to it through hearing vagina in the monologue?
In the words of Johnson & Johnson:
“We have decided to take a bold approach in this campaign with the aim to tackle a subject which has always been taboo.”
I don’t think the language is going to make this a bold ad on a taboo subject.
There is a lot of debate on it at present. Daye Moffitt, brand strategy director at creative agency Moon, offered a female perspective.
“Personally, it makes me cringe, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing and I do think it is a good strategy. The shock tactic helps with getting young women to listen up – it gets their attention in a very loud marketplace. It’s an effective and memorable ad, certainly.”
With the greatest respect to Daye, I think that cringe is the issue – imagine how parents with teenage boys respond when they hear it.
As anticipated the Australian Advertising Standards Bureau has received over 30 complaints since the ad first screened on Sunday evening. A spokesperson for the ASB said:
“Most of the complaints are about the terminology that’s used and the nakedness of the woman,”
Interesting that the nudity got so much attention, suggesting how conservative our viewers really are.
The creative challenge reaches beyond the use of explicit or provocative language. And “vagina” can be considered as explicit language to many in the mass market living rooms.
Creativity needs to find new ways of reaching into the consciousness of viewers. Ways that don’t rely on gimmicks, tricks and controversy.
The ad is good, not great, and the inclusion of the word vagina merely serves to draw attention to the word not the problem or brand. Probably at the cringing discomfort of many women who would rather not shout it loud and proud from the living room floor.
These women are after all the target market and discretion in communication is perhaps more relevant and motivating than the vagina monologue.