I recently came across the new Yves Saint Laurent’s “Belle d’Opium” ad. At first it seems rather like your traditional perfume advertisement; not very imaginative. An attractive model posing provocatively accompanied by some dramatic music shot in a short sequence ending in a tagline. However, there is a slight twist. The woman within the sequence suggestively simulates the injection of opiates into her veins followed by her falling to the floor uttering the tagline: “I am your addiction, I am Belle D'Opium. The new fragrance by Yves Saint Laurent.” This has led to the ad being banned by the ASA prior to releaseThe ad pretty much spells out the brand name. But for me the most significant thing is not that the ad got banned, which would seem obvious enough but that the ad agency which created the ad thought they would get away with it. Which leads to ask: how much is too much? Where do we as the public draw the line when it comes to what is acceptable to show in the advertisements shown on TV. It’s clear to me that pushing the boundaries is something which all advertisers will aim to do and I’m sure that Yves Saint Laurent have shot this ad without the the controversial element. This ad will probably run in a slightly altered format; I would just pose the questions: did they really think this would get through the ASA? How far is too far in advertising? And I suppose more importantly is this what Yves Saint Laurent as a brand now stands? If it is hinting at the seedy past of its failed fashion houses, which were closed in 2002, an interesting story for future reading for those interested, then the ad is brilliantly relevant but perhaps a bit late!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree that this ad is any more imaginative than other perfume ads; I think it is over the top, drawn out and like all other perfume ads it relies on the tried and tested 'sex sells' strategy.
ReplyDeleteI think that it is a bit much to ban the ad; according to The Independent only thirteen people filed a complainnt against it. I do not find it offensive in the slightest. I would suspect that the people in Yves Saint Laurent aren't too bothered; as you said they can simply shorten the ad; the offensive gesture lasts mere seconds. The company is synonymous with sexually provocative ads; a naked Sophie Dahl springs to mind.
I would agree that it follows a sex sells strategy and I also personally wouldnt find it offensive. However, I can totally see why it has been banned.I just dont believe it is wise for a fashion label to be suggesting drug use when it operates in an industry synonymous with drug abuse. I would also say that I agree that this is ad is not in any way more creative than other ads, it simply ads a more seedy element to the "sex sells" strategy, which is the slight twist. I just think its unwise to ascociate a brand with drug use, particularly in this industry. I wonder will there be a designer label who moves away from the norm with its advertising? I'm sure they're not bothered but I also suspect they wernt bothered in 2001 prior to to they're fashion houses being closed down due to the drug culture they were breeding
ReplyDelete