Erine SPANK'd...
Bayantel Billboard Ad
This is another example of a print ad that uses sexually implicit content in the wrong context. As you can see, the copy reads: "Satisfaction guarantee" (Wrong spelling, it should be "Satisfaction guaranteed") and the visual shows a woman in a state of ecstacy.Ok, sure some people would say that its ad isn't sexually implict since it doesn't expose any private parts, but then again, exactly what kind of satisfaction is the ad talking about? The satisfaction of using Bayantel's telephone services? Or the sexual kind of satisfaction? A foul-mouthed cynic could probably say "Look at the logo, stupid!", but then again, if someone who didn't know what Bayantel was would mistake the ad for something other than a telephone service provider's print ad. What I don't understand is why a company would even want to advertise using sexually implicit content when it has nothing to do with the brand anyway. Is it because are they not confident about their product or service that they have to use something like this to grab attention? Sexually implicit content may at first grab one's eye but its just that. It doesn't even sell the product or service anyway so why bother using it? Might as well show the exact benefit or value that you can get out of the product (or service, in this case), to the intended target market, otherwise don't bother advertising!
For reference, here's a section of the Advertising Code of Ethics that we found useful for this Ad:
Advertising Code of Ethics – Art. IV, Sec. 1, # 4:
“Profanity, obscenity and vulgarity, or presentations which are offensive to contemporary standards of decency or morals, shall not be allowed, even when understood only by part of the audience.”
13 comments:
that ad is really obscene
I definitely would not want my child to see that! I don't think any parent would!
this ad is creative.. the message emphasized in this ad is the service bayantel is offering however, depicting sex or whatever connotation this ad is speaking of its not good
oooh.. i hate this ad so much ever since i saw it.. it deserves the spank!!!
Any add insinuating sex is very bad especially to children.I spanked this ad!
the image used is not even related to the srevice.. it's a different kind of satisfaction. this ad should be spankd!
Any add that shows a lot of flesh should be spank'd.Spank bayantel!
Although I've been pretty argumentative on this blog's previous entries, this is definitely an ad that does not work at all.
First and foremost, Bayantel is a telecommunications company. A naked lady does not apply to them in any way. If this was a cosmetic brand, it would have worked.
Aside from the obviously malicious content, the poor grammar is definitely a let down.
This BayanTel ad does not need to be "spank'd". It deserves to be LAUGHED AT.
The mere fact the woman on that billboard facial expression demonstrates sexual connotations! Even a wild guess can zero in on the explicit intent of the ad! This is a classic example of a lewd act by the advertisers just to make money..What a shame.
A Telecommunication Company using a model that shows sexual innuendos just to get more customers is totally wrong! This company went far beyond the concept of its product when they accepted this ad to be displayed in public! There is no relevancy whatsoever about the female model and the service that the ad is intended for. If they think that there is a connection between the two, then they should take a lesson from the mother of all telecommunication, which is PLDT! They should be able to learn something about what is appropriate telecommunication ad is all about!
Well, another one bite the dust, in which I am referring to the Bayantel Ad! This is a classic showcase of indescent exposure to the public! If the advertiser thinks that they can hook me in with all the line, hook,and sinker like a fish, well they better think twice! I am one dissatisfied viewer and very irked about the message it conveys. This telecommunication company should stick only to what business they are engaged in, and not participate in horrific display of women trying to seduced a client to be serviced! A malicious intent on the part of the advertiser. This is a worthless effort to seek customers participation.
Yes, It's true this ad deserves to be spanked. Thanks for all your comments!
thanks for all your comments guys! but o just wanna remind all of you that the materials we posted here violated the advertising code of ethics in any way.hence,we should all keep in mind that it does not mean that if an ad we posted does not show any sexually implicit demonstrations, it does not violate the code of ethics anymore. please be reminded that the code of ethics is not confined into one topic only--against sexually implicit ads--rather, it's content has other topics that all of us should be educated about.so please read the stuff that guided us in helping us decide which to post or not. thanks! :)
Post a Comment