Enfakid

Here is a commercial of Enfakid by Mead Johnson.

*taken from another website

What do you think of this commercial?

Do you like this ad?

Bayantel has been SPANK'd

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.”

Bench Low rise jeans has been SPANK'd

Jewelz says...

When I first saw this ad awhile back, I had a similar reaction to most of the comments made in the previous post (Bench Ad - Low rise jeans). I thought it was funny, although I felt a bit ashamed because what if that ad came out and me and my mom were watching. Should I react to it and laugh out loud? Or should I pretend that I didn't get it?

It's obvious that Bench used sex to sell their product. In the first shot we see part of a naked body with a grandma and her grand daughter strolling. We then see the reaction of the grandma in seeing Sam Milby assuming that he was naked. As the camera zooms in showing the endorsers from top to bottom, the grandma grasps the wrist of her grand daughter tightly until the bead bracelet breaks and falls on the floor. Immediately, the sprinklers turn on and then shows that Sam Milby was wearing jeans after all. I definitely believe that there is no question about the sexual connotation that was in the ad. The timing, music, and visuals are syncronized to create a sensual effect. If it was you first time watching this ad, I'm pretty sure that you watched it from beginning to end and that was the whole point of this ad.

To some, having people watch an ad from beginning to end without changing the channel is an accomplishment. However, I believe that this ad should not have been broadcasted on TV especially because there are many viewers who are under aged and they may get the wrong ideas in dealing with the opposite sex. If it were only the adults watching this ad, I still think it would be wrong because when they watch the ad over and over again, they don't realize that they are becoming passive viewers. The first time they watch it, it may strike a funny bone. However, in the long run they won't realize that the ad is actually not good.

To cover up all the sexual connotations in the ad, Bench used Sam Milby, an actor and singer who was peaking in his career. Many people adored his character, buff body and of course his good looks!

According to the Philippine Advertising Code of Ethics in Article IV, Sec. 1, #5, it says,
“Indecent exposure of the human body may be allowed in advertisements when in good taste and relevant to the product or service being advertised, the situation being portrayed or the audience being addressed.”

The ad shows Sam Milby half naked but makes the viewers think that he’s really naked. I believe that this advertisement violated Article 4, Section 1 of the advertising Code of Ethics.

Furthermore, in Article IV, Section 1, #6 it says, “Advertisements should not depict or exploit persons as sex objects and should not carry any sexual entendres.” The Oxford English Dictionary defines sexual entendres as having a double sense or meaning. Don't you think that the Bench Ad of Sam Milby contains double meaning? Look at the timing, music and visuals. All together they have sexual connotations which are inappropriate to show on television. What would the viewers think?

I am not trying to put down Bench or Sam Milby for that matter. I would just like to bring to attention the sexual implicit message found in the ad, which should not have been shown. I think Bench could improve the Low-rise jeans ad and execute it in a more creative way.

Please check out: Bench Low Rise Jeans to view the ad and the comments.

Tell me what you think? What's your stand?