Selling Sex: Misplaced Marketing Dollars
Selling
Sex: Misplaced Marketing Dollars
Erotic images intended to
incite intense sexual emotions expose themselves to us daily. Ultimately, marketing managers and
advertising planners everywhere are determined to drive traffic to their
products and increase sales. The purpose
of advertisements is to evoke powerful emotions and link them to products or
services in the consumer’s mind.
Sexuality is a powerful emotion that exists in nearly all humans and is
therefore a natural candidate for advertising messages.
Research on the
effectiveness of sexuality in advertising has been done for more than 30 years,
and for 30 years no conclusive results have been reached. The often uttered phrase, “sex sells”, may
not be as intuitive or obvious as it seems.
Because sexuality in advertising implants negative brand perceptions, distracts
consumers from the ad message, and faces possible censorship, marketers are
misplacing their marketing dollars by selling sex rather than their products.
Attitudes
towards Advertisements, Brands, and Corporations
Sexuality in advertising may
incite and provide breeding grounds for negative attitudes. A study on attitudes towards the ad and brand
found that “an ad which contains a strong overt sexual appeal results in a
significantly less favorable attitude toward the ad, attitude toward the brand,
and purchase intention than an ad that contains little or no sexual appeal”
(Blair, Stephenson, Hill, & Green, 2006,
p. 111). So not only do the
consumers have negative attitudes towards the specific ad, but the brand also,
and they are less likely to buy the product.
The potential negative effects of a “strong overt sexual appeal” can
have – not only a product, but an entire brand – become clear.
Furthermore, with highly sexual print ads, “the attitude of women
is significantly more negative than that of their male counterpart” (Blair et
al., 2006, p. 112). In addition to
being viewed negatively in general, when we look at the reaction to sex in
advertising of women only the negative attitude is exacerbated. This provides strong support for avoiding the
use of heavy sexual advertising especially in the case of a product or brand
that is targeted (partially or totally) towards women. Figure 1 provides a great example of poor use
of sexuality in advertising. The Pine
Sol commercial features a shirtless male mopping amidst seductive surroundings
to sell the household cleaning product, which is no doubt targeted to women. This ad not only uses sexuality, which is
generally viewed negatively, but it targets women, who react more negatively
than men do to sexual images in advertising.
A classic example of how the often coined phrase “sex sells” can lead
marketing managers to throw their dollars into brand-damaging projects.
Sexual advertising can go beyond
damaging advertisements or brands; it can negatively impact an entire corporate
image. Pope, Voges, and Brown explored
the negative impacts of sexuality on corporate image and found that consumers who
viewed sexual advertisements perceived their corporate sponsors to be “less
reputable and the producer of a lower-quality product.” Additionally, consumers felt that the
corporation would be “discriminatory in its employment practices,” (p. 72, 2004). So in addition to being potentially damaging to
the ad and the brand in terms of consumer attitudes, sexual advertising can be
damaging to the overall corporation and can go beyond affecting external factors
like brand and product to the inner workings of the corporation (like
employment and policies).
Further evidence for the negative effect that sexual messages may
have on consumers is provided by Cerridwen and Simonton in their study of box office
success as it relates to sexual content.
The intense scholarly study of sexual content in movies revealed that
sex and nudity are in no way positively correlated with box office sales, even
when compared to other “R” rated flicks (2009, pp. 200-210). As a matter of fact, the opposite is
true. Negative correlations were found
with sexual content and box office sales.
As sexual content increased in these films, box office sales decreased (notice
Figure 2, a graph included in the study).
It is especially interesting to note the void in the upper right region
of the graph; marks in that region would indicate films that did extremely well
and were extremely high in sexual
content. There were not even outliers in
that section.
The lack of well performing
movies with high sexual content is yet another evidence that consumers may be
tired of sex in the media, whether it be television, movies, or advertisements,
and that their weariness with the sexual content is translating into buying
behavior. In a CNN report, recorded is a
response to Cerridwen’s and Simonton’s box office study,
Craig
Detweiler, director of the Center for Entertainment, Media and Culture at
Pepperdine University, said the study’s findings reflect the culture’s
post-sexual revolution sensibilities… Detweiler said he has seen among his
students that the new form of rebellion against the older generation includes “not
doing drugs, not sleeping around and not getting divorced” (France, 2009, p. 1).
In other words, Detweiler believes that what was once an obsession
with sex and sexuality (among other things) is now becoming old and
uninteresting.
The
Consumer Experience
Even though consumer
attitudes may seem to view sex in advertising negatively, it is essential to
consider the immediate effect of sexual advertising on the consumer including
brand recognition, ad recall, ad retention, buying intent, etc. Some argue that although the attitudes may be
negative, when it comes down to it, sex brings the message to the consumer.
Although sex may help break
through the clutter of today’s advertising world, the powerful innate emotions
and feelings associated with sexual cues seem to result in a greater hindrance
in communicating advertising messages than a help. Reichert puts it this way, “Sexual imagery
attracts a viewer’s attention and processing resources, leaving few resources
available for processing of other ad information. As a result, brand information (i.e., reasons
for buying the brand, brand name, sponsorship) is not processed to the same
degree,” (2002, p. 252). In simpler
terms, sex does indeed grab attention; in fact, it grabs all attention and
leaves no other processing resources for understanding the advertising message.
Blair et al. adds that,
“although studies have demonstrated that sexual appeals attract attention to
the ad, they do so typically without a corresponding advantage for brand
information processing,” (2006, p. 111).
And when discussing a study of sex in print ads, they report that, “The non-sexy
ads seemed to do the most good with the least harm,” (2006, p. 111). Parker and Furnham’s research on program
content and ad recall supports the notion that sexual content distracts. They said, “sexual programme content actually
reduced recall of advertisements,” (2007, p. 1225). In other words, the non-sexual program
watchers recognized and processed advertisements better than the sexual program
watchers, who were distracted from the advertisements.
The distraction caused by
sex seems to detract from not only the ad, but the reason to buy the
product. After his study on the effect
of sexy magazine covers, Reichert concludes, “The old adage that ‘sex sells’
may have resonance, but the results of this study fail to confirm a direct link
between sexually provocative cover-persons and purchase intention,” (2005, p.
128). The ultimate consumer response,
buying behavior, does not correlate with sex, a direct contradiction to the
“old adage that ‘sex sells’”.
Adding to the research done
on the consumer response to sexual advertising, Liu, Cheng, and Li found that
the Australian consumer response, including attitudes and buying behavior, was
more negative than that of the U.S. consumer response, (2009, p. 225). Their research suggests that the consumer
response to sex in advertising may be even worse in other areas of the world,
adding implications for international advertising.
Because marketing managers
misunderstand the true effects of selling sex, they are misplacing their
marketing dollars by investing in sexual advertising. As Rotfeld puts it, it may be that, “Instead
of communications, attention of any kind, to anything, at any cost, is their
goal.” (2009, p. 190). Of course,
attention is not the end goal of marketing.
Creating value for an organization is the main goal of marketing
managers and therefore selling sex is a poor allocation of resources which are
supposed to aid in reaching the main goal, increasing value. Drew Eagar, former VP of marketing for
Denny’s, summed it up nicely when he said, “When you go for the impact without
that brand content… yeah, you make an impact; yes, people are talking about you;
no, they’re not going into your store,” (personal interview, March 29, 2010).
Ethics
Ethics are highly subject to
values, which differ greatly from person to person. Consequently, arguing that sex, sexual
imagery, innuendo, or nudity used in promoting products or services is
ethically “wrong” may be a moot subject.
On the other hand, society as a whole generally strives to find what is
“right” and what is “wrong”, and develop legislation in order to protect people
from what is wrong. This type of
legislation is apparent in censorship, rating systems, or even laws against
underage drinking or purchase of pornography.
As society continually
refines this type of protection against what is wrong, there has been a lot of
discussion revolving around advertising.
Reichert argues that, “If [advertisers use sex to reach younger, perhaps
more susceptible audiences], advertiser’s use of sexual content to sell
products could have public policy implications,” (2002, p 250). A possible example of a “public policy
implication” is a rating system on advertisements that would prevent the
advertisements from being shown anywhere that did not have a consistent rating,
(Walsh, 1994, p. 25). For instance, a
show like a football game, rated “Appropriate for All Ages”, could not run a “TV-14”
rated advertisement, like an Axe Body Spray commercial, during commercial break.
Such legislation would
restrict sexual advertisements from showing on a number of programs and thereby
restrict exposure to a number of potential consumers. This type of pending legislation, if
approved, could drastically reduce the impact of an advertisement when that
advertisement is taken off several of its TV spots. There is a good deal of investment that goes
into paying an advertising firm to produce advertisements, which is why some
marketing managers may be misplacing their marketing dollars by purchasing
advertisements under the “sex sells” doctrine.
Counter
Arguments and Refutations
This argument states there
is nothing in the inherent nature of sex, sexual imagery, or innuendo that
leads to buying behavior. In contrast,
however, there are many scholarly articles and studies (and people who espouse
those articles and studies) that have shown there are linkages between
sexuality in advertising and the success of products. There are several possible causes for the
contradiction, but regardless of the source of the contradiction, the
contradiction itself shows that sex does not always sell. The evidence provided in this argument
underlines that not only does sex not always improve business; in many cases it
can damage it.
Proponents of sex in
advertising argue that sexual imagery has the power to break through the
clutter and is therefore a powerful marketing tool. It is true that sexual imagery in advertising
can grab attention significantly better than non-sexual advertising (Reichert,
2002, p. 252-253). However, the
attention becomes so focused on the method of presentation (i.e., the sexual
advertising) that the consumer is distracted from the main message of the
advertisement and therefore misses brand information, message, and ultimately
reasons for buying (Reichert, 2002, p. 252).
Those arguing for the
effective use of sexual imagery may also argue that the powerful emotions
associated with sexual cues lead to buying behavior. There are several documented cases of
companies improving their sales after using sexual advertising, which adds to
the argument that sex in advertising may increase buying behavior. For example, in Reichert’s article about
advertising research, he cites the example of Duke cigarette brand becoming the
leading cigarette brand in 1890 after inserting sexually provocative images on
trading cards in every pack (2002, p. 241).
Several issues must be considered in this case and similar cases used to
prove that sex sells. The general market trend or the macro-economic factors
present at that time are not known. Additionally,
it may be a hasty conclusion to assume that it was the sexual imagery that sold
the packs. For instance, what were
Duke’s concurrent marketing efforts? Had
their marketing budget increased over that time? Finally, there may be something inherent in
the typical consumer of cigarettes that is not universally applicable, for
example their demographics (like age, marital status, etc.) may be unusually
concentrated, or they may have unusually similar behavioral tendencies.
Adding to the examples of successful sexual
selling, proponents of sex in advertising cite research that has shown that
attitudes are improved and buying behavior increased through sexual
advertising, while others have stated just the opposite. Understanding the research methods, however,
may help us understand why there is such a strong contradiction. Reichert (2002) cites several research
findings that support selling sex (i.e., LaTour & Henthorne 1993, Reichert
& Ramirez 2000, Fullerton & Kendrick 2001, Ruth 1989, Bello et al.
1983, Reichert & Alvaro 2001, Severn et al. 1990, Belch et al. 1981,
etc.). Interestingly, in every one of
the examples listed the sample is aged 18-24.
Clearly there is a significant hormonal difference in young adults aged
18-24 than the rest of the population, and therefore the research becomes far
less helpful in aiding our search for the limitations and usefulness of sex in
advertising.
Furthermore, there are
dozens of stories of how sexuality has damaged sales. For instance, after Miley Cyrus who plays
Disney’s Hanna Montana did a revealing photo shoot for Vanity Fair Magazine,
viewers of the Hanna Montana show dropped 14%, (Muhammad & Muhammad, 2008,
p. A7). Understanding the ambiguity of
proof for the “sex sells” doctrine, marketers can more carefully consider the
use of their marketing dollars.
Alternatives
to Selling Sex
The goal of placing sexual
content in advertising is to excite powerful natural emotions that will
increase behavioral intentions.
Unfortunately, marketing managers are misplacing their marketing dollars
because they misunderstand the multifaceted effects of sexual content on
consumers; from attitude towards ad, product, brand, or corporation to ethical
implications to ad recognition, retention, processing, or behavioral
intentions.
As suggested by Huang in his research on romantic love and sex,
there may be a more effective and motivational use of the human relationship
than using sexual cues. Huang discusses
that there are four types of relationships that are possible in advertising,
and sexual is only one of them. The
other types of relationships are companionate love, passionate love, and
acquaintance. The four types of
relationships are defined by two factors: existence of a relationship and
degree of sexual explicitness. Figure 3
helps define the relationships along with the following text. Sex is defined by no implied relationship and
high degree of sexual explicitness.
Acquaintance is defined by no implied relationship and low degree of
sexual explicitness. Passionate love is
defined by an implied relationship and high degree of sexual explicitness. Finally, companionate love is defined by an
implied relationship and low degree of sexual explicitness, (2004, p. 61).
Huang’s purpose is to
determine which type of relationship is most effective in motivating buying
behavior. Huang, however, indicates an
intermediary effect, which is the pleasure/arousal effect. These four ads each produce some level of
pleasure and some level of arousal,(2004, p. 56). Pleasure ranges from “extreme pain or
unhappiness to extreme happiness or ecstasy” and arousal ranges from “sleep
through intermediate states of drowsiness to alertness and then frenzied
excitement” (Huang, 2004, p. 56).
Huang describes that
pleasure and arousal predict well the attitudes towards ads. He states that, “intermediate arousal might
be preferred to low or high arousal” and “ads that generate pleasure lead to
favorable ad attitudes,” (2004, p.66).
So the ideal ad is one that generates a bit of arousal and a great deal
of pleasure. In Huang’s research, he
found that, “both companionate and passionate love generated high pleasure,
which has a dominant impact on ad attitudes.
The intermediate levels of arousal generated by companionate love
intensified the positive impact of pleasure on ad attitudes,” (2004, p. 67-68).
In other words, companionate love in
advertising produced the optimal levels of both arousal and pleasure.
Connecting Huang’s research
to the other research cited in this argument, using companionate love to help
connect products and brands to powerful romantic emotions is a wise
decision. Advertising with companionate
love will allow marketing managers to avoid all the negative effects that come
from over-arousal and possibly offensive content. Additionally, the benefits of connecting a
truly and deeply rewarding relationship with your product will reportedly
increase behavioral intentions, and result in positive attitudes towards
product, advertisement, brand, and corporation.
Google’s 2010 Super Bowl commercial (Figure 4) is an outstanding
example of the effective use of companionate love in advertising. Without any
offensive or provocative imagery or content, Google is able to connect the product,
Google search, to a feeling of sweet, romantic love, which Huang suggests is
the most effective use of relationship in advertising.
Sex Won’t
Sell
Sexuality in advertising causes
negative brand perceptions, distracts consumers from the ad message, and is facing
possible restrictions in legislation.
Despite arguments that sexually suggestive advertising breaks through
clutter and motivates buying behavior, there is equally ample evidence to
suggest ineffectiveness in provocative ad messages. To avoid the pitfalls of provocative
advertising, companionate love can be used in advertising to encourage brand
recognition and processing and ultimately buying behavior. Understanding the full reality and
implications of attempting to sell sex will help marketers avoid misplacing
their marketing dollars.
References
Blair, J.D., Stephenson, J.D., Hill,
K.L. & Green, J.S. (2006). Ethics in advertising: Sex sells,
but should it? Journal
of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 9(1/2), 109-118. Document ID: 1290869791.
Cerridwen, A., & Simonton, D. K. (2009). Sex doesn’t sell—nor
impress! content, box office, critics, and awards in mainstream cinema. Psychology
of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3.4,
200-210. doi: 10.1037/a0016492.
Eagar,
D. (March 29, 2010). Personal Interview
France, L. R. (2009). CNN. "Does sex sell movies? Uh, not
really." Retrieved
January 26, 2010, from http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/
Huang, M.H. (2004). Romantic love and sex: Their relationship and
impacts on ad attitudes. Psychology
& Marketing, 21(1), 53-73.
doi: 10.1002/mar.10115
Leung, C. (2009). Sex Sells? Yes and No. Canadian
Business 82.16, 76-76.Retrieved March 26,2010, from http://www.canadianbusiness.com/after_hours/
Liu, F., Cheng, H., & Li, J. (2009).
Consumer responses to sex appeal advertising: A cross-cultural study of
Australia, China, and the United States. American Academy of Advertising. Conference. Proceedings (Online),
225,. doi: 10.1108/02651330910972002.
Muhammad, R., & Muhammad, N. (2008).
America's sex-mad culture: Corporate drive for profits is damaging girls, women
and eroding healthy relationships. New
Pittsburgh Courier (City Edition), p. A7. Retrieved January 26,
2010, from Ethnic NewsWatch (ENW). (Document ID: 1510168811)
Parker, E. & Furnahm, A. (2007).
Does sex sell? The effect of Sexual Programme Content on the Recall of Sexual
and Non-Sexual Advertisements. Wiley InterScience, 21, 1217-228. doi: 10.1002/acp.1325
Pope, N.K, Voges, K.E., & Brown, M.R. (2004).
The effect of provocation in the form of mile erotica on attitude to the ad and
corporate image: Differences between cause-related and product-based
advertising. Journal of Advertising, 33(1), 69-82. Retrieved January 26, 2010, from ABI/INFORM
Global. (Document ID: 649705251).
Reichert, T. (2005). Do sexy cover models increase magazine sales?
Investigating the effects of sexual response on magazine interest and purchase
intention. Journal of Promotion Management,
11.2, 113-140. doi: 10.1300/J057v13n01_08
Reichert, T. (2002). Sex in advertising research: A review
of content, effects, and functions of sexual information in consumer
advertising. Annual Review of Sex
Research, 13, 241-273.
Retrieved January 26, 2010, from Research Library. (Document
ID: 344000361).
Rotfeld, J.H. (2003). Misplaced marketing. The Journal of Consumer Marketing, 20(2/3), 189-191. doi: 10.1108/07363760310472227
Walsh, D. (1994). Safe sex in advertising. American
Demographics, 16.4, 24-30. Retrieved on
January 27, 2010, from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/
No comments:
Post a Comment
go on, add your thoughts to my house