Why why why why for the love of satan WHY do they use the packaging the do for men’s underwear?
I’m not talking about marketing to gay men, which is a legitimate – though comparatively small – percentage of the population.
But if you want to sell underwear to a straight guy, why do you think the way to do it is by putting a male model with a hard-on on the package?
I’m not remotely homophobic. I’m for full rights for gay couples. I’ve got lots of gay friends.
But I don’t want to stare at some guy’s crotch when I buy my undies. And I don’t have any other straight friends (in my very unscientific but 100% consistent poll) who do.
I’d prefer to see the undies on a mannequin. Show me the style and cut. No bulging crotches please. I think my preference is fairly standard amongst straight male shoppers. The model photos is a deterrent to me, if anything. So is there a reason they do this?
PS - I’m convinced it’s vastly different for men and women. As a friend of mine astutely said once, straight women like looking at men. Straight men don’t like looking at men. But both straight men and women like looking at women.
That’s not meant sexually… but women will size up another woman for various reasons. To see what she’s wearing, how it looks on her, what latest fashion trends are… it’s a different mindset than men have, and most women I’ve brought this up to agree with it. Again, not scientific, but seems to hold fairly well across the board.
So, anyone know the marketing reasons (idiocy) behind the extreme closeup crotch shots on guy’s underwear packaging?
I would presume it’s to show you how they will fit. Assuming you possess equipment that will bulge out some, wouldn’t you want to know how it would hold you together?
I’m not sure what underwear you’re shopping for where the model actually has an erection, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen it. (maybe in International Male, but they don’t really count)
I wrote the question after following this link … because I, being a guy, finally have enough undies with holes in them that I realize I need to buy more.
While watching a recent episode of The Janice Dickinson Modeling Agency, one unfortunate young male model was given a package stuffer. I don’t recall if anyone mentioned the official name of said stuffer, and the shots were such that surface features of the stuffer were somewhat indistinct, but it did not appear to be strongly contoured in any sort of a penis shape. It did not give the model the appearance of having an erection; rather, it gave him the appearance of a full basket. Given that the equipment was readily available this is presumably fairly standard.
I’ve never seen any underwear marketed with the models sporting actual wood. Not even Koala, although I haven’t seen their advertising for quite some time.
Well, I’m a straight guy and it doesn’t particularly bother me to see a picture of a model wearing the product on a package of underwear. Maybe it’s just you and your friends.
LOL. I worked on that show for about 2 weeks. (Was covering for an editor who was on his honeymoon.)
I cut a piece specifically geared toward gay men. That is, a clothing line by gay men for gay men. That was fine. But I still think the packaging for straight men – even using a filler like you mentioned – is odd.
Editing the gay photo shoot was a blast. Was actually pretty humorous sequence to work on. BUt I’d still prefer a mannequin over a human when I go shopping for crotch coverings. =)
I think you may want to examine your reasons for your reaction. It seems out of proportion to have such an aversion to seeing a real person using the product they are advartising.
The link you provided showed briefs in the 2xist brand, which according to Widipedia has many metrosexual and gay customers.
But the above-mentioned clientele not withstanding, I didn’t see any erections. It appeared to me that the briefs have a “pouch” design, which tends to not squash things flat. Now, it may be that some brands try to effect an image of bigness, but it’s still a far cry from a hard-on.
Yup. I did the first editing pass on the casting call and photo shoot. I have no idea what the end result was, as I was on the show so briefly (pun intended), but it was definitely a kick to work on. Made me laugh.
As for exact packaging of products, can you tell I don’t shop for undies that often? I just know it’s a common sight when I go to a dep’t store. Go to the underwear section at Macy’s or any other similar store, and there’s crotch shots everywhere.
I still think it’s the wrong approach to sell product to guys. I really do find the marketing quite odd.
First of all, none of the models in the pictures from the link you posted have an erection.
Second of all, the typical “crotch” shot you are referring to is used to demonstrate what the result of wearing the underwear will be, especially helpful with “pouch” briefs.
Third of all, I daresay it doen’t bother the vast majority of men to see this type of advertising or packaging. Perhaps you should rethink your “aversion.”
OK, apparently everyone is focusing on the hard on comment.
Ignore that. I was exaggerating.
I am just saying I find it an odd way that, in order to sell a product to heterosexual guys, the companies advertising said products are using closeup crotch shots, regardless of the model’s state of arousal.
I was wondering – here’s where it becomes a factual question for GQ forum – if there was an actual marketing reason behind it. I figure if a guy has a choice between two identical products, one with crotch shot packaging and one without, a certain percentage of the population goes to the one without.
The response of “wives buy the products” is an interesting idea. Not sure if it’s the reason, but it’s possible, IMO.
I still find your premise odd. Clothing is generally advertised with shots of the item in question being worn. I don’t see how being underwear would cause that to be any different.
So, in other words, you’d prefer not to have to see a penis at all, even one that isn’t erect.
I’ve been buying undies for my husband for over 30 years now, I’m about as straitlaced as they come, and it has never bothered me to see those guys modeling underwear, because that’s how men look when they’re wearing underpants. That’s how the non-erect penis looks, albeit perhaps helped by a bit of stuffing.
And if the sight of that that bothers you, then, well, I guess it’s a big wide world out there with room for all sorts.
May I ask, are you similarly distressed by seeing pictures of women wearing brassieres as you go past the Lingerie section? Because their cleavage hangs out just as much as the guys’ packages…
