Aggression vs. assertion: a sex ad story

The history of advertising has been a hot and intense one right from the start, a history which has led us all to this moment in time, when every minute, we are bombarded by millions of colourful images and loud noises, all vying for our attention. As a result, it is no wonder that the human body has developed a type of defense mechanism, which allows it to cope with this assault: the art of shutting out. We subconsciously make associations – similar sounds and images must mean the same old ads we see everywhere, everyday, so we don’t need to see them again, do we?

And the result? Ads are becoming increasingly bold, with old values being replaced by new ones, to the point where the only “moral” limits are those of the designers’ imagination. The idea of using creative, out-of-the-box advertising techniques to appeal to an ever more apathetic audience seems completely reasonable. But is there a line separating original from offensive, or, if you will, assertive from aggressive, in a world where non-assertion is seen as automatic failure?

Let’s look at a sensitive subject: sex and human sexuality. After years of being a recurring theme in a multitude of advertising campaigns, you would believe that by now it has become impossible to avoid being aggressive and still make your campaign stand out from the crowd. Apparently Durex, one of the world’s largest condom manufacturers was of the same opinion: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/295804/20120209/durex-dark-humour-banned-superbowl-ad.htm. Sadly for the company, the ad got banned from the 2012 Superbowl, after being deemed too offensive. Thus, the aggressive approach, which fails to consider the viewers’ points of view and bets it all on gaining their attention, can end up being shut out from the start.

So is there an assertive way of promoting sexual elements? Well, where there’s a will, there’s a way. I for one think that Stonewall’s recent campaign, “Some people are gay, get over it”, ticks all the boxes: http://www.stonewall.org.uk/at_school/education_for_all/quick_links/education_resources/4007.asp. While both ads clearly express their points, Stonewall’s does so in a far less offensive manner: it does not attack the viewers’ senses or morality, it merely makes a statement. To my mind, that is what assertion is all about: standing up for yourself, without backing other against the wall. And why shouldn’t the same rules apply to advertising?

The ethical grey zone: influence and controversy

I’ve previously looked at how conflicts can get resolved through exercising power. But what about influence? It’s hard enough to define, but the results of it being used can always be felt, sometimes in controversial ways.

At least that’s what a recent USA contraception scandal brought to mind. Long story short: a (female) law student testified before a House committee in favor of health insurance plans covering the cost of contraception; as a result, she was called a “slut” by popular conservative radio talk-show host, Rush Limbaugh. The result? Controversy and media uproar, including public statements against Limbaugh’s gesture from president Obama and Republican presidential candidate, Rick Santorum: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73549.html

Despite this, the fact remains that Limbaugh is extremely popular with Republican voters. A popularity which can easily translate into influence. Freedom of speech dictates that anyone is free to express their views, so there is no question of legality here. But, to my mind, this illustrates how using one’s influence can result in full-blown manipulation, which, let’s face it, major parts of the population are quite susceptible to.

… That brings me to my next example of influence where it doesn’t belong: religion. I have nothing against religious people, as long as they don’t have anything against me for not being religious. But after reading this gem: http://news.sky.com/home/uk-news/article/16117269, I can’t help but get angry.

While it is completely understandable to want to try every possible option when desperate times strike, it obviously takes a great deal of blind faith to decide on stopping the confirmed solution in favour of a hypothetical one. So, when using the massive influence that an established institution like the Church has accumulated over its supporters, should members of the clergy not be supervised in some way? And in the extreme cases where people actually suffer and die because of their beliefs, should the people who “sold” these notions to them not be held accountable? It is my strong opinion that they should.

Therefore, as hard as it is to exactly quantify it, I believe there are cases when a lot of influence can become too much influence. And, sadly, the world is full of such examples, from corporations to biased media to that one colleague you can’t stand but always act nice to, because of their standing within your social work environment. Go ahead and contradict me!