Sex Sells: And The Science (Or Lack Thereof) Behind It
We all remember and recall memories differently, but something that advertisers agree on — that we will definitely remember the name of their product if they include sexy women, fast cars and big guns. There are a huge number of adverts shown throughout all hours of the day for adults and children to see — whether this be TV, film, outdoor, newspaper, radio, or one of the many other forms of advertising.
I’m sure we’ve all seen the older types of adverts which usually objectify women, but through all the other madness going on in 2017, this is somehow still something that needs to be regulated. But with the amount of advertisers that try to get away with such content, surely it’s a risk worth taking for the profit it will bring them… right?
Well, there certainly has been a lot of people thinking the same thing. Studies and blogs are popping up everywhere, regarding whether the theory of using sex and violence actually increases sales, is true. One example being a study by Robert Lull and Brad Bushman titled “Do sex and violence sell? A meta-analytic review of the effects of sexual and violent media and ad content on memory, attitudes, and buying intentions” which was published in September 2015.
They predicted that as humans are evolutionarily predisposed to arousal or adrenalin fuelled responses to sex and violence, that using these cues in advertisements would enable the mind to more readily memorise what they saw, as well as be more attracted to the product it was trying to see. The main focus of the study was to review the effects of adverts containing sexual and violent media, and assess how that affects the consumers memory of the advert and if that furthered their intent to purchase the product or not.
There was a total of 53 experiments over 8,489 participants and the results showed that adverts with this type of media were remembered less, reviewed more harshly, and were less likely to be purchased than brands advertised without sexual or violent media.
And in their own words: “Thus, advertisers should consider the effects of media content, ad content, content intensity, and congruity to design and place more effective ads.”
But the public have also been thinking about the reality and effects of these adverts; an article featured in B&T Magazine looked at whether these adverts were actually causing more harm than good to the brands that present them — you can read the full article online here.
The image above was part of an advertisement for an all-day bus ticket which sparked outrage for its use of several different images of men and woman holding a sign which said, “ride me all day for £3”. The images were removed after no more than 24 hours of being on display with voices such as Charlotte Church attacking the company — you can read the full story from The Telegraph here.
With all the negative backlash to companies over sexist or nonsensical use of sexualisation, you would assume it would be in their interests to re-think their advertising campaigns. But just to prove how much they think it still helps them, here are a few more adverts released just this year, which have been brought to the attention of the Advertising Standards Authority (the ASA set the rules for what is offensive, misleading or harmful media in advertising — the people who can ban the adverts, basically).
21 Three Clothing Company Ltd
Number of complaints: 3
Reason: Sexualising women and children
Ruling Upheld: In part
Fenton Fitness Ltd
Number of complaints: 1
Reason: Degrading women
Ruling Upheld: No
Tarak International Ltd
Number of complaints: 2
Reason: Sexualising children
Ruling Upheld: No
I personally find that when I’m sitting watching TV with my family, the last thing I want to do is be awkwardly forced to watch anything sexual, or have my parents ask why I’m trying to leave the room. And I’m pretty sure this is a feeling shared by most people, but if you don’t believe me, read this article.
So to conclude, please just stop with the sexy adverts for products not relating to sex.
With thanks to Susie G Scott and Ellena Restrick
