PUMA Ad Mystery Solved
February 10, 2006 8:09 PM   Subscribe

Remember that really shocking circa-2003 PUMA advertisement that no one would take responsibility for? Its mystery has finally unraveled.
posted by Bryan Behrenshausen (38 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite
 
They got nothing and emailed the ads to friends; from that point it snowballed

Hmm. Interesting choice of words.
posted by stet at 8:22 PM on February 10, 2006 [1 favorite]


I didn't think it was that racy until I saw the um, stuff, on her leg!

Nice touch. LOL!
posted by jahmoon at 8:23 PM on February 10, 2006


What really happened - a small Eastern European agency affiliated with Saatchi & Saatchi created the ads on spec, trying to win business with a PUMA subsidiary.
posted by smackfu at 8:24 PM on February 10, 2006


I'm going out to buy some trainers right fucking now.
posted by undule at 8:33 PM on February 10, 2006


Wasn't the Gucci [NSFW probably] image even more risque? And that was for real. The line is so arbitrary who can tell what is going to offend these days. Sperm - bad! Pubic hair - good!

And here's the metafilter chat when the picture first surfaced. Kudos to _sirmissalot_ who was pretty damn close.
posted by meech at 8:37 PM on February 10, 2006


OK you caught me, I admit it. That was indeed me in that ad. Yup. But, you have to understand... the set conditions were really, really really, really bad, and I was desperate. Plus, I had NO choice but to work for scale. I'm sorry.
posted by R. Mutt at 8:43 PM on February 10, 2006


I just think the sperm makes it too literal.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:53 PM on February 10, 2006


"hippo eats dwarf" !
posted by troutfishing at 9:53 PM on February 10, 2006


PUMA sucks... no wait, blows... er... at least they could swallow.
posted by wfrgms at 10:02 PM on February 10, 2006


I could have sworn that the bit o' jizz wasn't in the original ad, but I guess I was wrong. I agree that it makes the add a bit too heavy handed.
posted by kosher_jenny at 10:10 PM on February 10, 2006


I think i Nike logo would've been more appropriate for that ad, meech.
posted by wumpus at 10:13 PM on February 10, 2006


The ads didn't shock me.

In fact I still want to buy some fucking pumas.
posted by delmoi at 10:21 PM on February 10, 2006


...but online store sales were up like CRAZY for a couple of weeks. Too bad we didn't even have the shoes in the ads in stock!

Heh.
posted by delmoi at 10:23 PM on February 10, 2006


wumpus writes "I think i Nike logo would've been more appropriate for that ad, meech."

"Just do it" indeed!
posted by clevershark at 10:26 PM on February 10, 2006


"Just do it" indeed!

More like "Just Did It" but I catch your drift.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:33 PM on February 10, 2006


wumpus: strangely, I remembered it as a pubic Nike. A quick yet destressing google search soon put me right.
posted by meech at 10:46 PM on February 10, 2006


online store sales were up like CRAZY for a couple of weeks.

But...people actually bought shoes because of this?

Christ people. Just...oh, I don't know...don't!
posted by sourwookie at 11:52 PM on February 10, 2006


What's that stuff, there, on her leg? Is that like Ivory soap or something?
posted by wolftrouble at 12:02 AM on February 11, 2006


it's ice cream, i'm pretty sure.
posted by tweak at 12:06 AM on February 11, 2006


Yum.
posted by meh at 12:54 AM on February 11, 2006


"Wear Puma ladies, and he'll dribble on your leg instead of asking you to swallow"?
posted by orthogonality at 1:28 AM on February 11, 2006


I never undertstood the controversy...how did I miss the goo the first time around?

I need a shower, now.
posted by piratebowling at 1:35 AM on February 11, 2006


It's not a good image - the guy who took it wouldnt know naturalism if it bit him on the arse so he's trying to be shocking - there's no class to the picture at all - is it viral marketing for the communist party ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 2:50 AM on February 11, 2006


Is there really a place for freshly-squeezed sperm in mainstream advertising? I think most people would say no.
posted by Rhomboid at 2:56 AM on February 11, 2006


Most appalling Puma ad ever.
posted by fixedgear at 3:12 AM on February 11, 2006


Aye , it's good to be part of a focus group - (lights the crash signal)
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:02 AM on February 11, 2006


Another good argument against working on spec.
posted by uncle harold at 4:17 AM on February 11, 2006


I didn't notice the spooge when this hit the first time, either. funny, since it was the first thing I noticed this time.
posted by Busithoth at 5:41 AM on February 11, 2006


Mod note: fixed the FPP link
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:05 AM on February 11, 2006


I didn't even know Puma was still making shoes. I think the last time I saw Pumas was in the 80s.
posted by Eideteker at 7:38 AM on February 11, 2006


Is this mystery really solved?
posted by kuatto at 8:33 AM on February 11, 2006


hahaha. +1 for fixedgear.
posted by atom128 at 9:42 AM on February 11, 2006


I didn't even know Puma was still making shoes. I think the last time I saw Pumas was in the 80s.

You are a tad bit behind the times. I think Pumas might be on their way though -- again.
posted by smackfu at 11:05 AM on February 11, 2006


Sure, maybe Puma didn't commission in the first place - but once they saw it, especially considering they had plausible deniability, I bet the marketing department jumped all over the legal department to make the threats and let the thing flare up nice and good.
posted by Drexen at 11:40 AM on February 11, 2006


Oh yeah, and: nowadays, word on the street is Puma trainers make good dancing shoes.

... and good cocksucking shoes.
posted by Drexen at 11:41 AM on February 11, 2006


There's no way the ejaculate was in the original; way too ham-fisted and poor design.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 12:11 PM on February 11, 2006


Paging dabitch...
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 12:47 PM on February 11, 2006


I didn't even know Puma was still making shoes.

Here in NYC, stylish Pumas (and Adidas, Diesel, etc) are what people wear with jeans to go for a walk instead of running shoes, which are hideous and pretty much never seen in the city except on the feet of actual runners or corn-fed tourists.

(I have a few pairs of Pumas and loved how cheeky those ads were.)
posted by lia at 8:46 PM on February 12, 2006


« Older Hall of Best Knowledge   |   USDA, you're doin' a heckuva job Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments