I love ads. I love to look at how companies are marketing themselves these days. I find it fascinating for so many reasons. When I think of ads for jeans I quickly think of sexy men/women. Doing their thing, strutting their stuff and trying to get the attention of potential customers. I get all that. And frankly not only respect that but also know that it works! It sells and frankly sells a lot.
To me this ad takes it to another level.
This ad is a five story billboard in New York City. The billboard has four people in it: a topless teenage girl whose elbow is strategically blocking her private parts lying on a shirtless guy. The shirtless guy has his head in the lap of another shirtless guy, who by the way is kissing the topless girl. While all of this is going on another guy is lying on the floor with his eyes closed and his pants undone.
For me all of this is a little too much! I wouldn’t be comfortable if my kids saw it and since it is on a billboard lots of kids do see this. Maybe I am shy and a prude but I am not comfortable with this at all. I realize that sex sells but I think this has taken it to the next level.
- What are your thoughts?
- Have you seen the ad?
- Do you like the ad?
I look forward to your comments.
Fee Sepahi says:
Hello Merrill,
I frankly would agree with you, that it sends all the wrong messages to our youngsters. Yes, it caught our attention and that was their attention, but when I look at a clothing ad, I think about how the cloths will look and feel when I wear them. Yes, I do realize that I am not nearly as attractive as anyone in the ad, but having grown up traveling through Europe, where nudity is accepted, in some parts, and nudity in advertising is a non-issue, this type of ad, where the message is promotion of an “orgy” for all intents and purposes, is carrying it too far.
No I have not seen the ad and this is my 1st exposure to it and no I don’t like the ad.
Thank you,
Fee
Jami Pulley says:
I agree. I’m uncomfortable with the positioning of the people, but also the fact that each person looks 16 years of age or under. Very inappropriate for most of the young audience, which I would assume is the group they are trying to sell to.
Colleen Mezler says:
I think this ad is WAY over the top. WOWZA! Shame on you Calvin Klein, these are young kids in this ad!! What did their parents think? Obviously they weren’t thinking.
Amy Shields says:
Wow! It is VERY difficult to offend me; I am pretty sure I’m what would be categorized as “liberal minded”. I also tend to look at things from the view of the advertiser: “Who are they trying to speak to?” If it’s not my demographic, I usually can see their point of view. Calvin Klein has ALWAYS pushed the envelope. Remember the uproar about their “heroine-addict” models? My only concern with this ad is the message it sends to teens (and younger audiences). They are in such a fantastic position to have a positive influence and have, instead, chosen to promote potentially dangerous thinking and actions. (Although, in all honestly, these type of graphics are ALL over the internet; just look at most teens myspace pages.) The reality is that our children are over-exposed to sex everywhere they turn; television, print media, the radio, etc. This is just another reminder to me that it’s more important than ever to have an open dialogue with our kids. Very thought provoking blog….I think I’ll ask my 18 year old how she perceives this ad and what message it sends from her perspective. Might be very interesting.
Merrill Dubrow says:
I have given this ad a little more thought and I wonder if Calvin Klein created the ad for publicity. Meaning they knew what most of the public would think and tried to creative alot of buzz which in turn may result in revenue.
Just a thought.
Merrill
Colleen Mezler says:
I think you are exactly right. It had to be for the “buzz”. It has certainly created a spark here on your blog!!
janet says:
It is not the message I would want sent to my teens if my girls were that age again. It rather sickens me that it is on a huge billboard for the whole world, including young kids, to see. At least if it was in a magazine there would be some chance to censor. I do not consider myself a prude but this offends me on so many levels.
Bill Dunn says:
I am so shocked that words escape me at the moment! All I can say for now is I agree with you, Janet.
Rick Johnson says:
To racey for me! Are they selling Calvin Klein Jeans or…______? How would you answer a question from your children? I would like to see us return to a more conservative approach, but I know that isn’t going to happen. Thanks Merrill and have a nice weekend.
Paul Kirch says:
Hi Merrill – I saw this yesterday on the news and was really surprised that Calvin Klein would put their reputation out there with this. I guess they view their target audience as, maybe, younger and more adventurous. Let’s look at this compared to Abercrombie & Fitch’s quarterly catalog campaign. They produce a very R rated catalog that featured naked models often in sexual settings. They do make you buy it or subscribe to it and in-store you’re supposed to provide ID to get a copy, but it used to be displayed in plain site within the stores, thus exposing a lot of people to its pages. A&F pulled it from displays, due to a great bunch of protesters chanting moral outrage, just a couple of years ago. Eventually they got so much negative press from the general populous and now only offer it by mail-order (which seems even less controlled). Throughout all of this their sales only increased. Even though there was a lot of negativity, their core audience was comfortable and even enticed by the campaign.
Though I don’t agree with the ad that Calvin Klein has displayed in an area where there are young children, especially as a billboard, you have to wonder how their primary buying audience will react. Maybe that ad is more targeted than it seems. Though it leaves good taste behind, it might just be successful. Personally I think its a shame that they couldn’t have chosen a more family friendly way of getting the message across, but we all know sex sells and that’s obviously their motivation. I hate to wish ill on anyone, but I hope their sales are actually hurt by this, to send a message to others wanting to “push the envelope.”
Michael Mitrano says:
Definitely over the top. Would I be right to guess that this is in Times Square? If so, the Disney folks can’t be pleased.
mark sutin says:
I think it crosses the line, sends the wrong image and just plain and simple in bad taste.
Most of the CK commercials I have found to be in poor taste
But what do i know, I voted for Dewey?????????????
Patricia says:
Definitely way over the top in my opinion – not a message I would like for my kids to see and think it is acceptable because it is plastered in plain view on a huge billboard. I agree more with having it as a print ad, it can be monitored a little by who the audience is of that magazine, but when they put ads on a billboard, it is hard to keep kids from seeing it.
Ken says:
I believe that Justice Stewart on the court sums this up quite well when describing obscenity…”I know it when I see it.” And while I love the free and open societly that we live in, I also believe that for many generations now, people have been pushing the bounds of what is socially acceptable. Seeing what they can get away with. People seem to be more worried about their individual rights to live as they want than worrying about the country around them…and with the current “Me” generation, I’m convinced this type of billboard will be seen as mild in another 20 years. By then I’ll just be viewed as some cranky old man who hasn’t evolved with the times.
Lance Hoffman says:
I like all the comments thus far, and was happy to see even you yourself, Merrill, revisit your original comments. I don’t think this ad is so much different from the CK ads you were seeing 10 years ago – they have always been highly sexual, and meant to elicit a response. I think it is more likely that what has changed in the past 10 years is YOU – we are all 10-years older, with kids who are older, etc., and our definition of what may or may not be offensive (versus stimulating or even amusing) certainly changes over time.
I also agree with some of what Paul said – I believe (A) this is targeted to their audience, much the same way that toy commercials that feature robots blowing up each other are targeted towards their own audience – and that audience is NOT US – we’re just the ones who ultimately by it for our kids. I also believe that being on a billboard creates controversy, which creates additional exposure. Look at this blog, for example – that’s one of the goals of advertising or public relations – to create a stir. One might be similarly offended by the “CHOCOLATE AXE” commercial, where a woman literally takes a bite out of this guys chocolate butt! But I bet all the adolescent boys went running to the store to by the body spray.
Do you think it accomplished it’s job? I sure did. Bringing it back to research, I remember when we (OAC) came out with what I believe to be one of our best ads ever, entitled “Hell, yes, size does matter” (http://www.opinionaccess.com/images/ad/OAC06.jpg) regarding our CATI capacity. While most of the feedback we got were rave reviews, we got some negative comments about it as well. However, good or bad, people went out of their way to mention it or talk about it – and the more they talk, the more awareness is increased, which ultimately helps drive sales.
Merrill Dubrow says:
Lance,
Appreciate your comments. I really believe they knew the reaction the ad’s would have – again creating a ton of buzz. and that will sell – I just think it is wrong the way they went about it. A 4 story billboard for everyone to see (which is what they want) doesn’t seem right to me. That is no place for different age groups (especially teens or younger) to see. I am ok having the ad in a Mens health or Vogue magazine – but I think it is way over the top the way they did it.
I remember you “size does matter” ad’s. Although you may have had a controversial play on words, you didn’t have sexy/men women posing as interviewers barely clothed. To me (just my opinion) a huge difference.
Let me know what you think.
Merrill
Lance Hoffman says:
I agree with the facts, per se, in comparing our ad with that billboard, but whether it’s words or pictorals – offensive is offensive. I understand your point about the vast exposure, but whether you agree with it or not, they are getting the most bang for their buck – especially on a NYC billboard, and you cannot make an omlette without breaking a few eggs. The ultimate point is that SOME people will be offended by anything that is controversial or risque. Obama was just attacked by animal right’s activists for swatting a fly during an interview in the oval office – FOR PETE’S SAKE (by the way – who is this guy Pete?)!
I think it’s just that this time, the one offended or made to feel a little uncomfortable happened to be you, the same way it happens to be me when I walk by an actual Abercrombe & Fitch store and the topless men are all outside trying to pull people into the store – and that’s in a mall, with young children being much closer to the topless men (who are real) as compared to the billboard. But the customers that those Chippendale-wannabe’s pull in probably buy a lot – which is the point.
Merrill Dubrow says:
Lance,
Interesting I like Pete – but I don’t know who he is either? I wasn’t aware of the Ambercrombie & Fitch store models/staff. But that would offend me as well – maybe I am just old. Ad’s are supposed create buzz and sell and I am sure this campaign will do the same and win lot’s of awards for their agency!
Merrill
Ana Lucia Mendes says:
Totally agree with Amy and Colleen. Even for a Brazilian “liberal minded” this was way too much, specially at a 5 story billboard, where parents don’t have control.
Ruthann Chesnoff says:
It’s definitely sending the wrong message to our teenagers. However,they are not alone in sending the wrong messages to our kids and grandchildren. I can’t think of one type of media that’d not playing the sex card. Television,Movies, and definitely the rap music. Its a shame that we have allowed this to happen. Even the manufactures of clothing for kids. Its hard to believe what has happened over the last 20 years in the way people dress[or under dress] for almost every occasion.
kelly says:
Like Amy, I consider myself “liberal” and hard to shock but I am very bothered by the audience it is targeting and the perception it may create by linking someones fantasy world to reality…not all fantasies are not meant for a 5 story billboard and this is one of them.
I do agree advertising is meant to amuse, evoke thought and occasionally shock but seriously we’ve got to have some standards especially when we are targeting younger people who are more impressionable by this sort of messaging.
Will Morris says:
From my 57 year old eyes, it is probably over the top. However, I don’t wear Calvin Klein jeans or have a Calvin Klein body anymore. I think that the ad creates a whole lot of buzz among their target market. Heck, it has created a lot of buzz among all the rest of us. I think they continue to push towards the edge. Some were shocked at their ads with Brooke Shields years ago.
chris hauck says:
OK – in a way it is kind of funny. We aren’t the target market. we aren’t even in the range of the target market. We are a lot like our grandparents were about rock & roll when our parents were trying to convince them how great the beatles and elvis were. You’d have to be sexually vague or metrosexual to find this particularly sexy. it certainly doesn’t make me want their jeans as I would look stupid in them and they can’t be nearly as comfy as my good old Levi’s 501’s. But I think that the next time I come to the MSMR meeting I’m going to wear a pair…..just for grins! But then I don’t pay more than $40 for mine and I’m guessing that these rags cost a lot more. So don’t count on seeing me in them.
I agree with all of you that the fact that we are talking about it has achieved CK’s goal. We are talking about it, so they are current. We don’t get it, so the product is relevant to our kids. And Disney probably isn’t really happy about the fact that this is hanging around the corner from the Lion King and whatever else they have on Broadway.
OK – obviously I’m avoiding writing a really difficult questionnaire – back to work now! Have a great day all.
krista joyce says:
Whoa!!!!whether I agree with that being posted as a public billboard or not – CK’s ad agency is getting all the attention they aimed for I’m sure.
Merrill Dubrow says:
Krista,
For sure. Someone mentioned it was highlighted in the news last night. I wish I had saw the segment. I am not sure what agency created these ad’s. I should check.
Thanks for your comments.
Merrill
Dan Womack says:
I agree…this, like so many other things recently, this is way over the top for a “mass audience” ad. My wife and I have always encouraged the asking of questions–about anything–from our kids, preferring they learn things from us instead of another 9 or 10 year old at school. Unfortunately, the frequency of having to explain stuff like this ad is starting to take up most of our days!
Convenience stores in our area have recently started trying to increase revenue by selling herbal/supplement products displayed at checkout—and I’m not talking glucosamine or bee pollen. A local Circle-K was recently displaying a “natural male enhancement product” directly beside Hannah Montana key chains! (Really, that is a true story). But back to the ad…
I think this ad (and the same approach from A&F, Victoria’s Secret and many others) is also an example of laziness and zero creativity form a marketing and advertising team. Can’t you just hear the conference room brainstorming session? “OK gang, we need a new campaign for the summer—gotta move some over-priced sweatshop jeans in this tough economy. What’s that Jimmy? You think really big pictures of Half-naked teenagers would be really awesome? Brilliant! I love the creativity and original thought in that. Let’s set it up.”
Are the creative teams completely comprised of 13 year old boys? Really big…nudity…the only thing missing is something getting blown up…guess the explosions will have to wait for the TV spot they shoot to run on the Disney Channel.
Christopher Dallion says:
In and of itself I do not take issue with the ad as advertising often pushes the bounds of intelligence, taste, etc and can be very subjective – one man’s trash is another’s treasure. Calvin Klein knows the furor they create with their ads and it makes them money. They have been in business for 40 years and they obviously intend to do whatever it takes to continue to survive even in this rough economy. Personally for jeans I prefer Levis but I guess that just means I’m old
That said I feel that something of this nature is extremely inappropriate for such a public display.
I personally prefer to have control over what my children see or do not see without some entity making those decisions for me. I control my kids’ internet access, use parental controls on the cable boxes in their rooms and make sure they only watch what I feel is appropriate for them. When my children hit their teen years, I know my control will have to give way to trust – trust in them and trust in the hope that I have raised them well. Until that time, I’ll keep working to hide this stuff from them until they can understand that some ads are just a waste of space.
Marisa Pope says:
I enjoyed reading all your comments. It’s a statement of our times that this ad could even be produced, right?
Being the old fuddy duddy I am I can remember a time – and really, I’m not talking about decades, but only years ago when this couldn’t have been produces without public outcry. Lance, I think you have a point about our accumulating years, but it’s not just that we’re older. It’s that the world is more tolerant of more things – more violence, more sexuality, more everything.
I think…sadly…this may just be the beginning of envelope pushing. CK has always done it…however, others are starting and it’s becoming epidemic to target our young ones.
Rhonda Ellis says:
Indeed this one in my opinion has gone too far. It does NOT need to be plastered on a billboard for sure.
Furthermore, if you have to go to this length to sell your jeans, how good are they?????! If this ad did not have the words Calvin Klein Jeans on it, I would never have guessed that’s what they were advertising. One does not have to use sex to sell one’s products. How about making a quality product and not charging an arm and a leg for it and I bet it wopuld almost sell itself.
And we wonder where our country, kids, generations went so wrong. It’s because the majority of us have no morals or modestly anymore.
Just call me “old school”.
Drew Judge says:
As a smokin’ hot prepubescent bi-sexual male who works part time as a Abercrombe & Fitch model, I don’t see what the uproar is about – the ad speaks to me. Lance serious kudos on the shameless OAC plug -and- bringing the conversation back to market research. To that point I guess the real question is how this concept would impact a volumetric forecast for Calvin Klein?
Lance Hoffman says:
I actually thought you were one of the models in the ad, Drew
Amy Shields says:
Have to LOVE the Drew-voice!
Merrill Dubrow says:
Drew,
Really appreciate your comments and position. You are right this ad will sell but as a parent I would rather the ad was located in a magazine as opposed to on a large billboard.
Have a great weekend.
Merrill
Merrill Dubrow says:
A few things about this promotion. CRK Advertising (their in-house agency) created the ad’s. In addition the billboard is in Soho and here is a video around the campaign with some reactions:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20090618/video/ven-threesome-advert-causes-controversy-cf04a8a.html
Merrill
Amy Shields says:
I think you guys will appreciate this. First, we are all a little oblivious. (More to come on that.) I called my 18 year daughter (very trendy/Abercrombie/Hollister/AE-type girl) and had her pull up the blog. I told her to just look at the picture and NOT read anything that Merrill or any of us wrote and asked for her initial impression/response to the ad. She said, “It looks like a very sexual dream to me…I think he’s having a dream and it’s too much for me. It looks like they’re freaking having sex!” Just to clarify…at no point when I looked at this did I think the guy in the front by himself was having a dream, but that’s the first thing my 18 year old thought and….she’s right, of course. He’s the guy with his head on the other guy’s lap. That was just a funny observation, and not one that I think anyone else saw either. When I asked her if it influenced her in any way, she said, “Not at all. It doesn’t make me want to buy the jeans. I’m more like, I can’t believe they put this out there. I think that anyone would think this is too much. What the heck is wrong with these people?”. OK – so just one teens opinion, however; it was not at ALL what I expected from her. Because she is very much my daughter, I thought she’s feel more like “What’s the big deal…I am my own person and know right from wrong…you’re all old and over-reacting”! Oops..that last past was ALL me. Anyway, just thought I’d share.
Merrill Dubrow says:
Amy,
Appreciate your daughters perspective. I never thought in a million years of a sexual dream – interesting thought. i actually just looked at the ad again and the two guys and they do look alike so maybe she is 100% right!
I hope other teens respond.
Thanks again.
Merrill
Jeremy Bromberg says:
It’s all about creating buzz, and it’s why I keep talking to my kids.
Over the years, these explicit ads have neither appealed to me nor bothered me. I noticed the billboard ads using lingerie models in the late 70’s in metro stations in Madrid, but even at an age when I could have used my age as an excuse for drooling, it just didn’t mean anything. These weren’t real people somehow. Not bothered.
Wilie Martin says:
Whew! I was really expecting something offensive, something really shocking to the system and quick to make my blood boil. Maybe not, after all, you can play a video game like ‘Grand Theft Auto’ and kill a cop and that’s okay. You can take steroids to make yourself stronger, go the lipo route if you don’t the way your weight takes you, starve yourself to resemble a model, or even sit in front of a computer for hous on end and wonder why you are fighting an obesity epidemic. Okay get off my soap box…Alas, we speak about just a picture…
This is why I am grateful I am childless and single. Maybe I should take more heed to the subliminal headings. I appreciate all the comments I have thus far Merrill, but I prefer to go old school and borrow from the classic tune by Cheap Trick 1979, ‘The Dream Police are coming to arrest me!’ That’s what this pic does for me.
Take very good care my friends!
SeanJJordan says:
I’ve thought a lot about these kinds of ads, and why they have power. I’m greatly bothered by the Abercrombie and Fitch sexualization of teens as well… but then, I worked at Eddie Bauer and EB Games when I worked in the mall, so I’m not exactly in A&F’s target market anyhow.
With that said, I agree with the sentiment that by giving this billboard any controversial attention at all, the advertisers win. They’ve already turned a 5-story billboard into a national campaign just by manipulating the media. It’s a good one-time strategy; it probably won’t continue to work for them for another decade or so, though.
Parents, if your kids see this, talk to them about what they’re really seeing. Get their perspective, and explain to them the fact that Calvin Klein has been manipulating teens for decades and that they’re just a bunch of marketing executives trying to stay relevant and cool so they can sell more jeans and underwear. By showing your kids how they’re being manipulated by their hormones, you’re more likely to take away the power of the ad in their minds than if you react with shock and outrage. If there’s one thing I’ve learned about teens, it’s that they HATE realizing they’ve got adults shaping their opinions. They want to believe they’re making their own choices.
Ed Sugar says:
I agree with everyone’s responses that is ad crosses on the line on taste, but I am not surprised or shocked by it.
Since the mid 1980’s, due to VCRs, DVDs and the Internet, there has been a proliferation of sexual content into the mainstream of the society’s conscience. Stars of adult entertainment today are treated with the same celebrity status of traditional Hollywood stars. Sexual content is prevalent in the story lines of many network prime time (8 PM – 10 PM) TV shows. Advertisements for Viagra and Cilas have replaced those of automobiles on sporting events (I have often wondered how a father explains those commercials to his young son when watching a baseball game).
Bottom line: Sex has and will always sell, especially in a society that relies primarily on visual content as its main source of news and information.
Matt Gershner says:
I’m with Ed on this one. How many times are your children exposed to Viagra and Cialis ads that warn of the dangers of an erection that lasts 4 hours.
While I’m not a parent, this is no worse than most of the other stuff out there. Quite honestly though – this ad worked – it got you talking about it.
Bob Graham says:
Like so many other readers, I was offended, but not surprised by the Calvin Klein ads. CK has always pushed the edge (back to the teen-age Brooke Shields “Nothing comes between me and my Calvins days”), but I am not their target, they are not in my consideration set and I don’t aspire to be like the people in their ads, so I didn’t give it much thought.
But I did see something recently that made me go “huh?”. This year marks the 40th Anniversary of Woodstock. A national retailer’s flyer this week features Woodstock apparel including a line marketed to kids. There’s a girl around 10 years old in a t-shirt with a big Woodstock logo on it. Woodstock for kids? Yes, there was peace, love and understanding preached at Woodstock and there was great music; but there was also sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll. Could those of you alive way back when ever have imagined a little girl wearing a Woodstock t-shirt? Will she watch the movie with her parents and see what it was all about? (Sorry, I can’t imagine watching Woodstock with my Mom & Dad.) And has Woodstock become so mainstream that it’s now suitable for kids? What would Jimi and Janis say?
Kim Larson says:
I cannot even imagine how I would explain that to my 9 year old. And frankly, she would have no idea what they were even selling.
Danielle Blugrind says:
You know, I wouldn’t care if this were in another venue — something I had control over and could CHOOSE to expose my child to, or not. But in a public place this is way too much (and I’m fairly liberal) and I would not want my daughter to see it. It’s hard enough explaining what some older kids at school mean when they told her the Jonas Brothers were “gay” (she doesn’t need to be hearing that at age 10!) but I really don’t want to go here. Agree that this is likely for the buzz and publicity, they are probably okay losing some parents as potential customers if they attract attention.
Connie Ruben says:
Wow – I just saw this. – Though I can appreciate some of the comments about a targeted audience, us getting older, sex sells, etcc, but…. this is over the top. This is a ad that all parties have to look at. It is not sometime that you can look at if you are so inclined. It’s on a bill board for all to see whether they want to or not. If a person has pictures of naked children on their computer in the privacy of their own home, they could end up in jail or at least be labelled as perverts. How much more sensitive should we be about pictures that are posted in public for all to see with what seems to be underage children. Have we really stopped caring?
Merrill Dubrow says:
THE BILLBOARD HAS BEEN CHANGED!!!!!!
Calvin Klein has turned down the heat a tad in SoHo – replacing a giant orgy-themed ad with a dripping-wet model in a string bikini.
Even though the replacement still shows plenty of skin, New Yorkers were more comfortable with it.
“I think it’s a good thing,” said Rae Vermeulen, 36, who lives a few blocks from the billboard at E. Houston and Lafayette Sts.
“The old one bothered people. It was a little too explicit with the threesome,” she said. “You didn’t even notice the jeans as much as what was going on with the people.”
The original showed a very young topless woman atop a shirtless male while kissing another man. Below them, a guy with his shirt and jeans unbuttoned appeared to be passed out.
As the Daily News reported last week, passersby thought the content crossed the line for public display. The new lady in red seemed to pass muster, though.
“This is a lot better than the full blatant threesome they had before,” said public relations specialist Rebecca Edmondson, 29, who passes the billboard daily.
“I do like the bathing suit on her. It’s cute!”
Adolfa Arena, 48, a dog walker in the area, said the ad was effective without being provocative.
“I think this one is brilliant,” he said. “It’s the beginning of summer, so it works out perfectly.”
Told of the complaints last week, Calvin Klein officials had defended the ad, saying the intent was to create “a very sexy” campaign.
The firm had no immediate comment Tuesday on why it yanked the ad – but gas station manager Shohel Mohammed, 29, who works across the street, was glad to see it go.
“Customers used to come in all the time and say that it’s too much,” he said. “I’m glad they decided to change it.”