April 10, 2001

9:31 PM

Is this banner offensive?I'm all for using a little sex to sell product, but this execution shows no link between the ad and the actual product that I could see...
posted by owillis (15 comments total)

Plus it's just a poorly-done banner all around: the woman is pixelly and the middle frame goes by almost too quickly to read the text.
posted by Zettai at 9:58 PM on April 10, 2001

I wouldn't exactly say its offensive. Its ugly and annoying like most banner ads though.
posted by howa2396 at 10:40 PM on April 10, 2001

Yeah, but she has a whip.
posted by jessie at 10:40 PM on April 10, 2001

An offensive banner would involve a woman ignobly spread-eagled to a post with several man brandishing her with a DVD player. It would involve blatant misogyonistic hatred and a flagrant subservient status.

This particular banner is just banal and uninteresting -- even with the whip.
posted by ed at 10:49 PM on April 10, 2001

i humbly apologize on behalf of my conceptually-challenged compatriots in the design industries.
posted by patricking at 10:49 PM on April 10, 2001

If you check out trade and business pubs in general (Inter@ctive Week comes to mind), you'll often find ads with menacing feral animals and in-your-face and obviously sex-driven themes. The sex ads are usually "rough" by modern ad standards, closer to Hustler than Playboy in style. Fear (of competitors who will "beat" or emasculate you) and the complex but always compelling meme of sex are the emblems of the "executive jungle." It has nothing to do with the subject of the industry/ad.
posted by aflakete at 10:52 PM on April 10, 2001

Who said it was offensive in the first place? (was it just you, Oliver?) It just looks like a lame catwoman ripoff to me, but the quality is so low, maybe I'm missing something.
posted by mathowie at 11:15 PM on April 10, 2001

Maybe just me. I don't mind half nekkid/sexy women in my commercials for beer, pizza and long distance, but I don't know how I feel about them in ads for internet directories.
posted by owillis at 11:22 PM on April 10, 2001

Yeah, I'd agree, it's a stupid combination for a net directory, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it's offensive. The third frame seems to have nothing to do with the first two.
posted by mathowie at 11:41 PM on April 10, 2001

Yeah, but what about the whip?
posted by jessie at 11:41 PM on April 10, 2001

Owliss: And Sprint spokesperson Sela Ward, a native of my native Miss., proves that you don't have to be 18-24 to be considered a sexy TV ad spokesperson, although it doesn't hurt to be Sela Ward at any age.
posted by raysmj at 11:42 PM on April 10, 2001

Evidently, quite a few other people have also found these types of ads rather offensive indeed. In fact, infousa.com yanked much more vivid versions of this ad and fired the marketing company... Gracenet, a grassroots organization named after Grace Hopper is going after these ads with great vigor. I saw the original, it was pretty graphic. I tried to find it, anyone else have it. Also, I submit winace's splash page... sheesh.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 12:02 AM on April 11, 2001

I'm actually more offended by the gratuitous use of the color yellow, rather than the leather-clad dominatrix. Yellow is an evil, evil color and it flummoxes me that they continue to use it in banner ads.

On second thought, maybe yellow is fitting.
posted by Dane at 7:03 AM on April 11, 2001

"Leather-clad dominatrix"? I thought she was a wild animal trainer. That's what the whip is for, jessie.
posted by anapestic at 8:11 AM on April 11, 2001

I can't resist:
Saffron: Disgusting! That is so degrading to women!
Patsy: What do you mean, degrading, she's got the whip!
(from Absolutely Fabulous)
posted by CrunchyFrog at 9:08 PM on April 11, 2001