– Chuck Sanchez, BatesMeron Sweet Design 

Comcast. Electronic Arts. AT&T. Walmart. Dell. Time Warner. Fox News. McDonald’s.

Chances are, at least one of those company names kind of pissed you off just now.

Despite this likelihood, each of these brands is immediately recognizable due to widespread financial success in its respective industry. So must a

On my first day of law school, I received a piece of advice that sticks with me today: if you don’t know, the answer is always “it depends.” In the world of advertising, the most common “easy answer” is “sexy.” If you can’t think of anything clever, just put a picture of a guy with six-pack abs, or a woman in a bikini in the ad. It works for burgers, cigarettes, clothes, deodorant, anything! Arguably the connection is stronger where the product involves beauty or attractiveness, like clothing and perfume, but most of these ads are a bit of a stretch.

A few months back, fellow Duets Blogger Brent discussed the unrealistic image of beauty created by modern advertising.  It certainly isn’t a new phenomenon, but societal definition of beauty have changed. Just a few decades ago magazines were telling women that they were too skinny. Regardless, advertisers have been relying on the “put a pretty lady in the ad” solution for years, like this ad for projectors from 1959. However, an ad released this week has been receiving a bit of global press for putting a new twist on the strategy:

Spoilers below the bump, so watch the video first. It’s Safe For Work, I promise.


Continue Reading Rebranding “Sexy”