Absolut Bad Judgment

This is the ad that's had Absolut vodka in a pot of hot water the past few days and has some groups calling for a boycott.

Though the ad was intended only for Mexico (curious that it used English in that case), Absolut has been playing defense to an outraged chorus since it reached American eyes.

An Absolut spokesperson said of the ad, "In no way was it meant to offend or disparage, nor does it advocate an altering of borders, nor does it lend support to any anti-American sentiment, nor does it reflect immigration issues."

And yet, it does all those things so well.

What's horrifying here? First, one or several people at Absolut's Mexican ad agency -- Teran/TBWA -- are probably packing their desks at this very moment. Probably a couple in Absolut's marketing department, too. I can't really feel sorry for them. How would this ad go over if the borders were Israel and Palestine? Or Germany overtaking Europe? You can bet this one isn't going into anyone's portfolio, all arguments about the value of free publicity aside.

Second, even after offering a sincere and heartfelt apology, I believe Absolut can look forward to a decreased market share in the U.S. for some time to come. I don't think the fat lady's anywhere near singing with this one just yet.

And finally, Absolut and its parent company was recently sold to French spirit maker Pernod Ricard SA, under a deal reached just last week! Bet they're glad to have this one in their portfolio, too.

But what the hell do I care? I'm a Smirnoff man myself.

The Death of Cool

This post is not about advertising that uses fear, only an ad that comes across as kind of icky today.

The ad to your left is for the Way In boutique at Harrod's, and it hails from the year 1969. The boutique was Harrod's gambit to freshen up their staid image by offering apparel and attitude for the era's hip, happening, way out crowd.

The ad does things that were considered daring then, but just seem creepy now. For starters, it uses the word "sex" five times, two of them in the headline. Not that I object to the word or what it stands for, but that seems a bit like overkill for a time when sex was still a word mostly whispered. (Advertisers have known the attention-getting power of words like "sex" for years, and I have to hand it to the copywriter who came up with a way of using it twice in the headline, something that probably earned him/her an eventual promotion.) All that sex must have been shocking in the day, but strikes the contemporary viewer as just plain tacky. We have much more sophisticated ways of using sex to sell these days.

You can read all the copy by clicking on the photo for a larger version, but here are the howlers. It begins, "Male or female, you're all the same to us at the Way In. Our latest range of clothes looks just as good on the weaker sex as it does on the strong one."

Weaker sex? Strong one? If the universe's wires suddenly got crossed and this ad somehow ran today Harrod's would be boycotted, the story on cable news outlets for at least 36 hours. Eventually there would be apologies from Harrod's, and firings, and the slow, gradual rebuilding of goodwill and sales.

After daring users to visit and try on their one-sex trousers, shirts, coats, hats and swimwear (I'm guessing the swimwear tops were for women only) it continues, "One warning. If you come in to buy a surprise present for your nearest and dearest, be careful. They might be there buying one for you."

Oh, the titillation!

It's 1969, men and women are liberated. They are having sex and not afraid to wear one another's clothes. And judging from the ad copy's wink-wink tone, this kind of shopping could lead to having even more sex.

(Little could Harrod's know, but in just four short years stores like Sears and J.C. Penney would be offering his-and-hers cardigan sweaters and turtlenecks and jumpsuits. The idea wasn't to spice up your relationship, just provide ensembles that would look good on bowling night.)

The Way In logo is a naughty little keyhole, with the store's name tucked into it in crowded calligraphy. It's almost enough to make me wonder if the boutique had a discreet entrance in some private corner of the store.

The white-on-black copy space adds to the sense of the forbidden, but otherwise the ad's layout could not be more conservative or classic for the time. It looks just like any other ad that might have run back then for Volkswagen, Hertz or the Red Cross. Sure, the photo is probably a bit risque for the time, but if this ad was created today, it would feature a lot more photos of friendly bottoms in underwear, including a male-male pair, a female-female pair and a few more pair of them all in different color combinations.

To paraphrase another popular ad of the time, we've come a long way, baby.

Compare and contrast with this recent ad for Calvin Klein's CKOne cologne. Unisex again. But what a change in almost 40 years.

In addition to showing us something that actually looks like sex, complete with semi-nudity, it appears some of the models have been chosen for their androgynous quality and dressed in a way to obscure their gender.

No come-hither headline. No copy about the thrilling escapades you'll enjoy when you wear CKOne and little else. Just two couples, tentatively but passionately exploring one another's bodies, who look like they're likely to turn around any minute now and really get the party started.

My point in this post that's gone on longer than I intended? We have come a long way, baby. We've gone a long way, too when it comes to sex and advertising. I sometimes wonder how much further we can go. (There's that song from Oklahoma again.) What body part will be revealed? Which act depicted? It's not that I object, it's just that I can't think of anything myself at the moment.

But when I see it, I know I'll be shocked. At least for a little while.

The Red Phone is Ringing

I kind of had a feeling that Texas was going to screw up Obama's chances for the presidential nomination, and I was both glad and sorry to see that I was right. That's Texas for you.

But I was surprised that Ohio got in on the action, too. I expect more out of good midwestern states. And Rhode Island? I don't really know what to say.

Last night as I was watching the primary returns, much was made about the Hillary Clinton "red phone" ad, and how effective it had been for her in these hotly contested states.

Here it is.



Talk about your uses of fear. The first thing that struck me is that there's no red phone in the ad. Prior to actually seeing it I thought for sure we'd get at least one shot of a red phone ringing in the middle of the night -- maybe in the Oval Office, with just a bit of moonlight coming in through the window. But alas, this was not to be.

Still, Clinton & Co. play on one of a parent's -- and in particular, a mother's -- worst fears. Something terrible has happened, and it's coming to get your kids.

Given the juiciness of its premise, I'm surprised the ad didn't play on that fear more explicitly. But this is politics, after all, and I suppose discretion is the better part of valor.

Instead, we get images of tots sleeping soundly in their beds, while a phone rings unanswered in the background and a solemn male voice explains that Hillary Clinton is experienced and knows the world's players and is ready, willing and able to pick up that phone and deal with whatever bad news it brings.

And then there she is -- wearing glasses, and obviously still hard at work putting together tomorrow's PowerPoint presentation to the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Answering that red phone is just one more thing to do in her busy, presidential day. We can go back to sleep, secure in the knowledge that Hillary has answered the red phone and we'll never even have to know what that call was about.

Probably the most famous politics of fear ad is "Daisy," produced for Lyndon Banes Johnson's 1964 presidential race by what is now advertising agency DDB.



The first thing you'll notice is the spot's slow pace. But once that little girl has plucked every petal from her daisy and the scary military voice begins counting down, I'm hooked. And then come the nuclear blasts.

Looking at this objectively, "Red Phone" ought to be the more frightening spot. After all, it never shows us the fear it's addressing. It merely alludes to something awful. By keeping it unspoken, that awful something should be all the more enormous and terrifying to us. And yet.

In my opinion, "Daisy" kicks "Red Phone"'s ass, and I think it has everything to do with showing us our fear and not backing off from it.

"Red Phone" is just too gentle, too suggestive, too... nice in my book. I say if you're going to play the politics of fear, put all your money on it and go to town like the LBJ ad. Show us what we're afraid of us and don't placate us at the end.

But maybe it's just too early in 2008's presidential race for the equivalent of an all-stops-out nuclear explosion. Maybe in October. And probably from McCain.

You're Going to Be in a Car Accident

This commercial gave me chills when I saw it during Sunday night's Oscar broadcast.

I've often said that all advertising plays on at least one of two basic emotions: hope and fear. This spot deftly combines both into an ad that's incredibly simple -- and effective.

It comes from San Francisco's Venables Bell & Partners, who are also responsible for what I thought was the very unfunny Godfather spot during the Super Bowl, also for Audi. Ironically, the Godfather spot is all over the web, whereas this one proved much, much harder to find. Funny, given that this is such a superior spot.

Sorry, VB&P, but sometimes the kiss comes with a slap.