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
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!
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?
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
[fixed the FPP link] posted by jessamyn 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
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
The Hall of Best Knowledge...
| US Meat Supply at Risk of Mad ...
Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Subscribe
Hmm. Interesting choice of words.
posted by stet at 8:22 PM on February 10, 2006 [1 favorite]