Offensive Ads???

Yay my first blog, bare with me I’m new at this. So, it didn’t take me long to come up with something to discuss for this blog! After class today and our discussion about the Old Navy ad that Anamarie had pointed out, I started thinking about what other ads could be out there that people have found offensive? So I hopped on the search engine Google, and it didn’t take long to see the results of my search which I titled, “offensive ads”. One of the first results was from a USA today editorial, titled Offensive Ad’s. As I began reading the article, which was published in 2003, I remembered exactly what it was referring to. I am sure everyone remembers the year Abercrombie and Fitch came out with the thong underwear for young girls, but it wasn’t just any underwear, it had slogans on it like “eye candy” printed on it. As the article continues it also talks about the ads posted in store windows, which shows a 14 year old girl topless from the waist up, her arms and hands being the only thing covering her chest. The articles discusses how many groups had protested the products and the ad’s, however Abercrombie refused to pull the products and the spokesperson for Abercrombie, Hampton Carney, (and I quote from the article) insists the thong was "totally appropriate" for children. Now maybe it’s just me from the words thong and children don’t even belong together in the same sentence!!!

But enough about that particular situation, because at first I was like no surprise Abercrombie has offended someone again, but then when I read the statement by the Abercrombie spokesperson I was a little disgusted. So where am I going with all this, after all that was 2003. My question to you is do you think Abercrombie has improved there advertising much since then, and if not why do they continue to be so successful? This isn’t the first time they’ve created controversial ads. So how is it that they continue to upset people, but remain such a well known brand?

-Renee