Sex In Advertising
We’ve gotten it oh so wrong
For years now, many have confidently chanted, “Sex Sells!” This clichéd mass-market communicative memo has rung in the ears of many. While the goal in advertising is to tactically present a product or service in a profitable manner, it is a shame that the effectiveness and impactful consequences of barely clothed models plastered on billboards doesn’t ring louder. Although one may not deeply reflect whether that seductive blonde is subconsciously converting their looks into dollars for a given brand, what is being considered is the prominence of hyper-sexualized content in countless magazines and cities. One may continue to proclaim “Sex Sells,” but in reality, this notion is doing more harm than good. By reviewing and analyzing experimental procedures, evolutionary gender differences, and contextual variations, one can argue sexual content does not in fact effectively sell products, but in fact, creates negative irreversible societal repercussions that many should be wary of.
One can argue that sexual advertisements are effective in that fact that they captures one’s attention. Sexual advertisements are much more exciting than any ordinary advertisement and are moreover psychologically and physiologically stimulating. “Sex Sells” is an established counterpart to the advertising industry, which must mean something valuable behind the one-step formula. The leverage of sensitive material is revolutionary and should be applauded for its creative introduction to the advertising sphere. However, numbers do not lie.
Multiple experimental research and numerical evidence has revealed that arousing advertising content has negative effects on participant memory and brand interest. When studying the effectiveness of sexual content in advertising, it is often paired with violent content due to the similar surprising and arousing nature. Research by Bushman has argued that sex does not sell. While testing participants by embedding sexual and violent commercials in sexual, violent, sexual and violent, and neither sexual or violent television programming, researchers have discovered widely unheard results. Despite participants’ attitude toward the television content, in the sexual and violent advertisements there was a reduced likelihood of a participant remembering the advertised brand, interest in purchasing the brand and likelihood of selecting a coupon for that brand. There is clear statistical evidence that arousing content, does in fact, disrupt memory-encoding processes and alter attitudes toward a brand.
Bushman’s findings make even more sense when viewed from an evolutionary standpoint. Many, many tears ago, it would have been advantageous to be aware of violent or sexual cues in one’s environment for survival. Violent cues triggered responses in order to avoid death and sexual cues triggered responses in order to reproduce. Overtime, these attributes have evolved and become recognized by advertisers. Advertisers employ our evolutionary characteristics in order to attract our attention. However, what is not being considered, as highlighted by Bushman, is their effectiveness. One may be stimulated and focused on sexual or violent content, but that does not necessarily mean one is devoting their full attention to the intended message. Bushman’s research discloses that such arousing content takes away from a brand, which goes against the most primitive objectives of advertising.
When it comes to advertising, it is often forgotten that more than the intended audience views the ad. With that being said, if an advertisement is intended for a solely male audience between the ages of 18–24, the advertisers must realize women may be viewing the ad as well. Unless strategically prevented, this can create unfortunate disparity in brand recognition and identification, especially when it comes to the inclusion of sexual content.
Due to evolutionary differences, men and women are not quite identical when it comes to the interpretation and enjoyment of sexual advertisements and content nonetheless. Evolutionary speaking, men have developed as individuals whose principle objective in life is to confidently pass down his genes. This means that men are less concerned with the emotional attachment of their mates, but rather the fertility and increased likeliness that healthy, genetically identical offspring will be produced. A number of mates, attractiveness and youthfulness are characteristics often associated with men’s life-long sexual purpose. On the other hand, women’s evolutionary goals and ambitions are quite different. As the sex having to bear the offspring, women are more interested in a mate who will stay by their side and provide financial, emotional, intimate and physical protection. Comparing these characteristics side by side, insight is obtained into a gender’s distinct probable interpretation of sexual advertisements.
By comprehending the contrast in sexual motivation and tendencies in men and women, it is then safe to declare that sexual advertisements affect men and women in different manners. When incorporating sexual content into advertisements, one must then recognize the unfortunate opportunity for inconsistent perceptions, especially when it comes to gender and sexual orientation dissimilarities. Research by Dahl, Sengupta and Vohs has found that women reported significant negative responses toward sexual advertisements. Here, advertising places sex out of the context of a relationship, which is something that evolutionary speaking, women do not value. In these findings, although men may have reported enjoyment of sexual ads due to possible identification opportunities or aspirations, one must explicitly differentiate the “enjoyment” and “effectiveness” of an advertisement. Drawing back on research by Bushman, in regards to the “effectiveness” of sexual advertisements, they are deemed ineffective. To summarize this gender contrast notion, advertisers create unnecessary risk when it comes to developing easily differentiated and possibly conflicting attitudes towards their product, content and brand. Due to the fact that sex and gender perspectives vary, sexual content allows the opportunity for completely differing interpretations. Moreover, when it comes to product or service sales and brand recognition, it would be ignorant to incorporate sexual content due to predicted divergent interpretative possibilities.
Gender is not the only difference that can play an effect on the perception of sexual advertisements. Research by Mittal and Lassar has found that sexual liberalism plays a role in the response towards sex in advertising. These findings support the proposition of possible negative outcomes of an advertisement due to dissimilar attitudes. Additionally, personal attributes, cultural backgrounds and varying experiences also affect the impression of sexual advertisements. Such variables play intense commercial risk especially in such an ever-diversifying multimedia environment and landscape.
Additionally, Chang and Tseng have found that the product being advertised plays an effect in the success of the sexual advertisements. It has been found that sexual advertisements work best when used for sexual products, while implicitly sexual advertisements work best when used for non-sexual products. Furthermore, in the laboratory setting, gratuitous or uncalled for sexual content in an advertisement received consistent negative feedback. Participants felt as if the content was unethical and manipulative. This goes to say that consumers are in fact aware of the tactics of advertisers. To surmise, this can have harmful effects on a brand.
Lastly, context plays yet another role in the success of an advertisement. In a micro-context, an advertisement can be viewed differently depending upon the medium in which it is being viewed. An advertisement in a gossip magazine can be viewed differently than if it were seen next to a political op-ed piece in a newspaper. The macro-context regards the society or country in which the advertisement is being viewed in. Socialization also plays a demanding responsibility, and let it be known that varying cultures hold differentiated outlooks on what is considered “sexual.” Noted, the inclusion of sexual content in advertisements is not only supported as ineffective, but fundamentally risks the chance of multiple and critical comprehension due to varying personal characteristics, backgrounds, experiences and contexts in which the advertisement is being viewed in.
Although many of the previous arguments have suggested that sexual advertisements are merely impotent, one can further illustrate the presence of purely negative outcomes of such advertisements. First off, the prominent majority of sexual advertisements feature attractive models and are additionally manipulated or edited. What this does is create a false sense of natural attractiveness and body image. By constantly presenting an onslaught of computer falsified photos or “the most attractive people in the world”, societal norms and expectations are ultimately and radically skewed. This plays an effect on everybody, no matter one’s gender or age. Besides attractiveness, hetero-normative themes are established and maintained in sexual advertisements. More than majority of sexual ads feature heterosexual couples engaging in sexual activities. In combination with other media outlets including television and movies, advertising perpetuates the proposed “norm” of heterosexual behavior. As children and teens begin to develop, such media influences their perceptions and expectations. More often than not, when an advertisement is deemed sexual, it is often featuring a female subject. The popularity and widespread use of attractive females in advertising has created immoral and flawed views toward women, while merely considering them sexual objects. One would assume that as established societies that have drastically progressed over the past 50 years, this severe depiction of women would have been assuaged. Although with societal changes, including a sense of cultural maturity, one would presume advertisers would feel compelled to become increasingly aware of their depictions and exploitations of women. This supports that notion that techniques of advertisers have not changed and actually have become more irresponsible for the negative perpetuation and portrayal of women.
According to Boddewyn and Loubradou, the prominence of explicit sexual advertising in France has prompted strict public and private control. Such guidelines and regulatory actions have been seen in other countries as well including the United States. With this being said, when it comes to a point in time when governmental restrictions are being placed on advertisers due to sexual content tendencies, it may be time to take a step back to witness and comprehend the harm that it does.
After evaluating research results, evolutionary advancements and numerous personal distinctions, it can be asserted that not only does sex not confidently sell, but it is dramatically harmful. As audiences confronted with a countless number of advertisements throughout our daily lives, it is now our obligation to become increasingly aware and thoughtful of advertiser’s tactics. We must not fall trap of such creative maneuvers while inadvertently supporting the continuation of negative and harmful portrayals of gender distinctions and sexual objectifications.
