Advertisers jeopardise image in pursuit of indecent exposure

The ad industry, when discussing the potential longevity of a campaign, used to ask whether it had “legs”. These days, there are more important attributes – as Eva Herzigova and her now-famous client can testify.

Wonderbra generated more newspaper stories than any other advertising campaign last year, according to an analysis by Propeller Marketing Communications. It was mentioned no fewer than 55 times – almost twice as many as the runner-up, Club 18-30, with its infamous headline focusing on another part of the anatomy. In third place was the film Disclosure and its “Sex is Power” poster, featuring the parts of Demi Moore that Michael Douglas couldn’t quite reach.

Increasingly, agencies and advertisers are seeking to make their campaigns work harder, through news and features in the press and on television and radio.

Wonderbra must be well-satisfied with its performance considering its campaign was not even new last year. Herzigova obviously has legs too – even though the campaign doesn’t focus on this part of her anatomy. The fact that the tabloids – and not just the tabloids – are still happy to publish her picture, long after the original controversy over the campaign has died down, means that Wonderbra is indeed getting great mileage out of its advertising.

There is nothing new in the concept that sex sells. But increasingly advertisers are latching onto the fact that controversy – once something that responsible companies avoided – can move products and services too. The three most written-about campaigns last year not only had sex and posters in common – they also prompted many complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority. Three pioneers in this field, Calvin Klein, Benetton and Nike, also featured in Propeller’s “Ads in the News” top ten, together with BT, Sainsbury’s, Guinness and Walkers Crisps.

It is no coincidence that complaints about advertising are rising. This week the Independent Television Commission reports that it dealt with 3,432 complaints last year – slightly more than in 1994 and 1,000 more than in 1993. Although it says advertising is not the only sector to experience more complaints – the Citizen’s Charter and other “accountability” initiatives have encouraged people to be more assertive – the ITC also refers to “a deliberately aggressive and abrasive trend in advertising”.

It cites several recent examples. Fifty-seven viewers complained about three Whitbread Flowers Ale commercials, claiming they were in bad taste and likely to foster anti-social behaviour. In one, two men discuss the history of an old oak tree and then cut it down to use as a table for their beer. In another, they see that a dog has chased a flock of sheep over a cliff and lost its footing. One man tries to rescue it until he realises he’s losing “valuable beer money” out of his pockets, whereupon he lets the dog fall – only for it to be saved by landing on the pile of dead sheep.

The ITC conceded that some viewers would find this in bad taste, but rejected the complaints because the ad was “light-hearted”. It also turned down 21 complaints about a Sekonda watch ad which showed footage of Sir John Betjeman being interviewed and saying his main regret was he had not had enough sex.

But it upheld 22 complaints about the timing of three commercials by Ogilvy & Mather for Nik-Naks crisps. They appeared in children’s programmes, featuring a rugby player having his head kicked off instead of the ball, and a demolition man blowing his own head off.

The ITC pointed out their similarity to a previously criticised Tango ad, created by HHCL & Partners, the agency that almost made an art form of campaigns which generate complaints. Perhaps surprisingly, no HHCL commercial featured in the ITC’s top five of 1995.

The most complained-about TV commercial last year was for Sun Alliance, which juxtaposed images in a way many viewers found shocking – for example, it cut from a child with a toy gun to the sound of a car backfiring, giving the impression a shot had been fired. The ITC received 214 complaints, but didn’t uphold them.

Such notoriety might have been expected to put Sun Alliance in the “Ads in the News” table, but it’s not there. Nor are any of the others in the ITC top five – Neutralia (despite the attraction of its famously exposed nipple), Peperami, McDonald’s and the aforementioned Flowers Ale, all of which were found offensive by at least 50 viewers, though not by the ITC.

Offence on TV seems to be no guarantee of newspaper exposure, no doubt partly because TV ads are pre-vetted and anything truly offensive has been weeded out already. Indeed, the lesson for agencies that want newspaper coverage seems to be to head for the great outdoors. Apart from the campaigns mentioned already, Playboy TV’s “Morgasms” poster attracted generous coverage when MPs complained about it to the ASA.

It’s not just sex that gains column inches and pictures. Cadbury dominated the papers – particularly the broadsheets – for one day in November when its agency Charles Barker beamed the words Wispa Gold onto the dome of St Paul’s cathedral.

But is all publicity good publicity? Controversy comes at a price. Does a long-established company like Cadbury want to be remembered for the headline: “A blitz of bad taste”?