Specifically, in the current Abercrombie and Fitch catalog. (Yes, I’m aware that there’s a Pit thread on this, but I didn’t want to hijack it, plus, I’m really looking for opinions, not rants.)
First of all, before anyone says it, I know sex sells. My question is, in this case, WTF is it selling? The way the photos are described, it sounds like they almost exclusively show skin. So how is anyone supposed to know what the clothes look like? And if we don’t know, how is anyone supposed to make an informed decision on whether they want to buy them?
The Snopes link does show one photo: a guy wearing boxer shorts and having them teasingly pulled off by the bevy of women surrounding them. Seems to me, though, that whether or not women want to rip a guy’s clothes off is up to him, not the clothes. And if he’s gonna end up naked anyway, what’s the difference if the shorts cost $40 or $5?
I’m not saying that these photos are “wrong”, per se. I’m just asking how, or if, they are effective advertising for clothing.
The purpose of a lot of advertisements is to create a particular image. Then people who want to be in that image buy the product to show the world that they fit that image.
Take Marlboro cigarettes as an example. The advertising is designed to show that rugged, tough people smoke Marlboros. People who want to be viewed in that image can smoke Marlboros and everyone will know that they are rugged, tough people. The taste or quality of the cigarettes are almost irrelevant.
So if a clothing designer had ads of fully naked people frolicking in the sun, it would serve to attract people who liked that image and wanted others to think of them in that light. If enough people are aware of the image, then by wearing those clothes you are saying you are part of that image.
If I remember correctly, it was Pepsi cola who was the first company to do image-based advertising. Their commercials showed young people having a great time and drinking Pepsi. It said nothing of the quality or taste of the product. So if you wanted to be seen as someone young who liked to have fun, you could drink Pepsi and the world would know. Most other advertising of the time spoke to the quality of the product and why it was better than the competition. I guess the natural progression is that the image-based advertising can say nothing about the product at all.
Well, actually, they did buy that kind of publicity. Unless the photographer and models were working for free.
As to the OP, according to Snopes, the models are usually only partially unclad. And I’m guessing that what they are partially unclad in is A&F clothing. The magazine also contains ads and catalog items. To get the magazine, you have to go to the store, either to buy it or subscribe. So I think we can answer to motive and opportunity. And if nothing else, they’re getting people to pay $7.00 apiece for their catalogs – that alone is pretty clever marketing.
Here’s the deal. The magazine/catalog is broken up into two segments, the magazine aspect and the catalog aspect. It contains the sexy/artsy photos and various interviews and articles to lure in the buyer/reader. Once they’ve gotten the mag for that stuff, they’ll incidentally thumb through the clothing portion of catalog. Basically the sex and nudity are a method of capturing the audience in order to sell to them later.
I’m sure a lot more people will look at these catalog listsings than will at your average J Crew catalog. I’d say its a pretty shrew plan.
Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you. Just, the way I saw it, I was like, “Well, these people don’t seem to want to wear your clothes; why should I?”.
It was pointed out to me that maybe it’s supposed to imply that if you buy the clothes, you won’t be wearing them very long (like the guy who is mostly naked with the half-naked women around him, I guess).
I still think it’s stupid, but I’ve though they were stupid for years, so there’s nothing new there.
Ever look at a perfume ad (not one of the scented ones) but just a regular perfume ad in a magazine? How do you sell perfume with a picture of a bottle? You don’t, you sell an image and then people will buy your stuff. Or, when walking through the mall they will stop in to see what all the fuss is about, and hopefully buy some stuff.
Most advertising is designed to make YOU think that you will be the person in the ad. YOU will be a hard-bodied, handsome dude surrounded by a bevy of bare beauties who want to rip your clothes off and have sex with you.
Yea, it’s all about selling the lifestyle. Like, buy this overpriced polo shirt and you’ll be having sex with nubile 18 year olds. Or, rather, people who wear these clothes have a great chance of having sex with nubile 18 year olds. It’s called image.
You have to buy the catalog at the store.
Some people revert to being a kid trying to buy his first Playboy and go into the store and since you can’t get a large Icy, a comb, a playboy and pack of gum, you end up buying some jeans and a t-shirt with a huge logo on it, the catalog, and a sweater.
What you are describing is sympathetic magic. In the mind of the beholder, buying those trashy,overpriced clothes at A&F will transform this ugly dweeb into a handsome hunk.
We all know that this won’t work, but the human brain never works in a rational way!
Let’s face it, most of the human race are ugly…and no amount of clothing (or lack thereoff) willchange that fact.