Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.life From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: Risque business Date: Mon, 9 Nov 92 14:59:57 EST Message-ID: \SE D;LIFE \HD Risque business \SH Madison Avenue's shock troops unveil naked agrression on ad front \BY Ann Geracimos \CR THE WASHINGTON TIMES In the let-it-all-hang-out '60s, Harper's Bazaar caused a sensation by photographing a well-known young New York society woman in the buff. It was an editorial feature, not an advertising ploy. But in today's desperate '90s, it seems that nearly everything, and everyone, is used to sell - rather than tell - anything. Every little bit of clothing, or lack of it, goes a long way - to the bank. Depending on who's interpreting the trend, the casual way in which body parts are exposed, or emphasized, in slick advertisements appearing in magazines from the New Yorker to Rolling Stone is either a step forward in Euro-style sophistication or a step backward in good taste. European publications traditionally are more forward and less inhibited in their approach. Americans often are considered prudish by comparison, but now U.S. advertisers appear more willing to exploit the human body for commercial ends. "Advertisers are trying to make sure their message stands out in a cluttered environment," says Scott Donaton, who covers the magazine market for Advertising Age. "It's almost a sign of desperation. Consumers get so much thrown at them, and particularly in fashion magazines. This also is the weakest time economically that magazines have had in over 30 years; publishers will take any nickel they can." Mr. Donaton compares risque ads to such other attention-getting "gimmicks" as pop-up pages and fragrance strips. And he agrees with one theory: In a conservative time, if people aren't having sex or are afraid of it, then fantasy is offered as a substitute. It seems only yesterday that a bare-chested male torso was considered provocative. Now we have up front in November's Vanity Fair the rapper Marky Mark clutching his private parts straight on, wearing only Calvin Klein briefs and a beanie. (The same issue also features on separate editorial pages two women celebrities with bosoms bared.) The Klein ad contains three other suggestive pages, one of which also appeared in the "new" New Yorker's debut issue Oct. 5, prominently displayed opposite the table of contents. In an obviously contrived pose, a bare-chested Mr. Mark nestles a furrowed brow on the equally naked chest of a nymphet whose disheveled jeans reveal just a hint of designer underwear. Just inside a recent cover of Glamour magazine, that same nymphet - English-born model Kate Moss, 18 - sits bent-kneed in belted Calvin Klein jeans and nothing else. On the opposite page, she stands, with feet now clad, in a casually buttoned matching top. * * * You've certainly come a long way, baby. But when is two steps forward - look, ma, no underwear! - the equivalent of two steps back? It's possible, after all, that even the American public will grow weary of so much skin. Granted, Glamour is geared toward young women. But these advertisements are as "realistic" as any ever seen in a mass-market magazine, including style and fashion publications. It's not the absence of clothes that is causing all the fuss, however, since the most eyebrow-raising campaign shows a fully clothed couple in a black-and-white sequence of erotic poses against starkly urban backdrops. The campaign in GQ and Details, both men's style magazines, were placed by Wilke-Rodriguez, a little-known men's sportswear firm. The only print on the page is the company's name and logo in a corner. Details is a cutting-edge pace setter where such daring photo work is to be expected on both editorial and advertising pages. GQ, with a circulation of 636,000, or nearly twice that of Details, is more mainstream but also has the more controversial photograph: A distinctly preoccupied woman is seated on a windowsill holding a man's head while he is looking between her legs. In the same issue of Details, Request jeans produced what is called an "onsert" in the trade - a separately bound promotional effort attached piggyback style to the publication. This 48-pager tells the story of two women and a hitchhiker, "Thelma and Louise" style, in a series of florid black-and-white photographs taken in and around the Mojave Desert. The shocking part is the uninhibited actions of the trio as they move from highway to motel and back on the road again. The man ends up wearing only his jeans, his body spread-eagled on the desert floor, and the women, arms raised heavenward, ride away in the distance. The title on the cover is "The Rough Ride." In one scene, the women are naked except for some jewelry, the man in briefs and boots. Where clothes are featured, they definitely are secondary to the action. * * * In a repeat of a jeans campaign by Calvin Klein's company in October's Vanity Fair, the Request onsert was distributed only in New York and Los Angeles. A spokeswoman for Details agreed that these were two urban centers where consumers - and especially supermarket chains - were least likely to object to the contents. In addition, the magazine printed a toll-free number for anyone wanting a free copy of the ad alone; all 10,000 copies - what the spokeswoman called "a limited print run" - have been snapped up. What's significant here? That Mr. Mark and Miss Moss in the Klein ad look outward at the reader rather than toward one another? That Miss Moss' nipple is either airbrushed or nonexistent, thereby observing some weird new decency code? But what is the code? No nipples when a couple is shown? No genitals or pubic hair? The couple looks insouciant to the core, but hardly innocent. There's no telling what their real feelings may be, and that may be the point here. The reader can insert his or her own emotions and become part of the scene, even to the point of wanting to own the designer's clothes. The jeans world as provocateur is a curious matter, doubtless having something to do with the burgeoning market in casual clothing and the heightened rivalry among brands. Guess jeans widely features a sultry blond Marilyn Monroe look-alike spilling out of the top of her denim outfit; another photo has her spilling forward in a strapless gown for Georges Marciano. The point of such campaigns is, of course, to be noticed, especially if the advertiser is less well-known in the marketplace. Companies apparently are at war to produce the most provocative male and female torsos imaginable. Remember how shocking it seemed when Calvin Klein put Brooke Shields on the celebrity map with a jeans campaign that posed her in a skintight pair saying, simply, "Nobody comes between me and my Calvins"? By today's increasingly lax standards, the latter seems a harmless titillation. Fashion circles, of course, tend to be blase about sensual poses of nearly nude models. The avant-garde is their metier; photographers love to compete, to be noticed. What seems new is the prospect of exceptionally revealing, and sexy, ads moving into mainstream publications. The question arises: What's the common standard of public decency in this arena anymore? * * * Steven Florio, president of the New Yorker, agrees that more risks will be taken with advertising in the current economic climate. He also claims he didn't notice Miss Moss had her breast smoothed over in any way and says yes, some readers had called in their reactions to the Calvin Klein ad. The New Yorker, Glamour, GQ and Details all fall under the umbrella of parent company Conde Nast, whose director of circulation, Peter Armour, says it is strictly an editor's call each time whether or not to use a particular ad. A decision is made on an individual basis, he notes, suggesting that placement of the ad relative to content of articles is likely to be the more important consideration. "The rule of thumb is any hint of frontal nudity means you could have trouble at retail," which can discourage sales, Mr. Armour says. "I was not keen on that picture," he admits, speaking of the latest Calvin Klein jeans and underwear campaign featuring Mr. Mark and Miss Moss. "I am overruled sometimes. "I find it curious," he adds, "that rarely are there problems [from readers and buyers] with the written word. Only with photographs." There is no set standard in the industry about what is considered the limit in advertising. Such matters generally are considered the sole business of the client and the magazine; the advertising agency - the so-called creative element - takes whatever liberties it thinks it can get away with. The final judge is the consumer. * * * "In the fashion world, people are constantly stretching the creative side to get people talking, but not so many used to be on the edge," says Philadelphia-based advertising man Dave Luhr, director of client services for Wieden and Kennedy. "Vanity Fair and GQ are pushing the envelope." Overall, such things "ebb and flow," he notes. "The last five years have been more conservative, with AIDS and the economy." Mr. Luhr, whose clients include such fashion and sporting goods manufacturers as Nike and Anne Klein, also notes a growing sophistication in readers that might help explain the nature of modern advertising techniques. "They are fairly upscale and educated. They don't need to be beaten over the head." There are no standards written down about what is acceptable or not, he says: "Every medium has its own. We did an A-line ad for Anne Klein on cable that showed a woman and a man playfully on a bed. We thought it [was] done in good taste." Of the controversial Wilke-Rodriguez campaign, which has stirred up the most public reaction, he offers only "no comment" - easily the most telling comment of all, implying he doesn't like to criticize colleagues. "There is an invisible line [between good and bad taste]," says another professional in the field, who requested anonymity, adding that the Wilke-Rodriguez campaign was "not something I expected to see." According to a spokeswoman in Washingtonian magazine's advertising department, that publication never would consider running such explicit photographs. "It comes up mainly in a discussion of medical ads. We don't show the breast," the spokeswoman says. "We did that once in an editorial [feature] article, maybe four years ago, with a breast. But we haven't done it since. I think [advertisers] know we wouldn't use them. We get the tasteful Calvin Klein ads." This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM