Okay, time for looking at both sides of the spectrum. First up, the parents...
Parents Side: This article, via StudioCity, is by Kelly Cloe, a single mom of a 9-year-old son who is not so happy about this ad. I suggest you read the whole article cause it gives a good representation as to why parents are upset. But to give a CliffsNotes, she talks about how she drives past this every day with her son on his way to school. She says doesn't know how to explain what's going on to her Army obsessed son (who noticed the ad because of the dog tags. Come on, that's a little humorous) without lying to him. She says, "I know some would tell me to use the opportunity for an illuminating conversation. But I don't need Manhunt Mobile to set my Important Talks Agenda. Our family really could have gone awhile longer without that particular conversation–and should've been able to do so." She also talks about how it's not necessarily the image she's bothered by, but the product they're advertising: "It’s not the blatant porn-iness of the over-lit image, or that it is of two men. It would be equally annoying if it were hetero. It’s the fact that I am forced to figure out a way to frame to my fourth-grader the fact that some people like to find causal sex partners fast using their mobile phones." Hmmm...okay. Not sure if every parent who's complaining about it is upset about the product versus the image, but I'm open to that thought.
Okay Manhunt, your turn...
Manhunt's Side: Manhunt's Jason Harvey came out with a statement on their blog (just FYI the website is a little NSFW) defending their ad "featuring two models in a sexy but tasteful pose together." He even address Kelly Cloe's article and her claims that the complaints she made cause the ads to come down, when actually their ads expired. He also released a statement from their ad agency Lamar Advertising emphasizing the fact that, "we used our restriction codes that we have in our system for alcohol, to make sure that we were placing Manhunt in appropriate locations."
They also brought up a very valid point about another company's ad that's out now. Even before I got to that part of them mentioning it in the article, I kept thinking about this particular ad my sister and I saw in Times Square that we both legit said "whoa" when we saw it. See below:
According to the Manhunt blog, they couldn't find any complaints for this ad, which in LA is placed not far from the Manhunt ads. And the one in picture that I saw is right in Times Square, which is family-tourist central in NYC. Again, no known complaints. Makes you ponder...
Here's what I have to say. I think if you come out with a "risque" ad, you'll always have someone – especially parents – who doesn't like it. Both of these ads are clearly suggestive, but I think the Michael Kors ad is just a tab...okay...insanely more obvious as to what this straight couple is about to do. Two shirtless men not even kissing vs a butt-naked girl about to have some fun with her underwear-clad man...yeah, it's pretty clear. However, even though the image in the Manhunt ad is just two shirtless men close to an embrace, what it's advertising makes it quite obvious as to what these men are about to do. I also understand the complaint of where the ads are placed, but it seems that Manhunt followed very specific guidelines and did their best to keep it away from children. (In NYC, there are Manhunt ads everywhere, but mostly in the gay neighborhoods.) I think this convo can go back and forth for days, but both sides have very valid points, therefore making very interesting conversation on the topic.
If the Manhunt ad were a straight couple, would it cause such a stir? I'm not sure, but judging by the reactions of the two ads at hand, I don't think it would. Just makes you think...
MK Billboard Source
No comments:
Post a Comment