Selling Sex

We're all trying to figure out the mother lode of online advertising. And they key concept to that, like my advertising professor used to say is: grabbing eyeballs. And how do you do that? Sell through sex.

Being edgy and creative are different concepts, yet they mean the same in marketing parlance. Viewers have been anaesthetized to such an extent that the marketing people should not be worried about stereotyping or offending people. There is so much sex and nudity in advertising that the combination is mind numbing. So what the marketing guys should be more worried about is on being ignored because of the viewer being desensitised to the image.

Essentially, what is offensive to my parents’ generation need not necessarily offend me. The radical and in-your-face concept moves from the extremes towards the centre. And what is now the extreme will be the ‘centre’ in a few more years. What I am trying to say is that edginess is a dynamic concept that marketing theories hold on to for dear life. And if at any point the ad is not edgy enough, they OD on it.

Advertising agencies and their clients would not spend millions of dollars in making ads if they didn’t think they would give them the publicity they need to sell their products. Why would they invest in a lost cause?

However evil I think the advertising world is, and much as I hate to admit it, sex sells. And like SeongBae said, movies and advertising are getting more violent and obscene. Products are pitched with such explicit sexual imagery and innuendo to the extent that some even border on pornography. But then again, sex sells and we’re all buying.

will media become more provocative?

I believe this “lack of attention due to information overload” in this century is one of the reasons why TV, movies and advertising are getting more violent and obscene. It makes sense if you look at this issue from media companies. Media are all about getting attention, and I guess they have to do what they have to do to catch up with these “busy people.” But then, what is the boiling point for this attention-begging phenomenon?

People will pay more attention to more violence and obscenity first, but they will eventually get used to it. It’s like the Jerry Springer Show. People got used to seeing so called “freaks” on the show that they don’t consider these “freaks” to be freaks anymore. Back in 1990s, gay people were considered to be extraordinary to put on the Jerry Springer Show, but nowadays, if Jerry puts some random gay couples on the show, it will not draw much attention from viewers. Gay couples in this century are pretty much normalized compared to 10 and 20 years ago. This is why the show is becoming more and more provocative. (I don’t know if "provocative" is the right word choice. I tried to think of an English word to properly describe this.)

So, here is my point of view. If media companies try to get more attention by becoming more provocative every time audience becomes apathetic toward the media’s degree of provocation, would there be some kind of boiling point for this? How far will the definition of “provocation” keep changing over the courses of time?

auto-confirm@amazon.com Your Order with Amazon.com 8:58 pm... aka OMG this post is long. apologies.

Okay, yes. I went and bought the book from Amazon before I came here to post this. I bought it with my Amazon Prime account, so it'll get here in two days. Delivered to my front door.

I am Rob Lippincott. Well, at least as much like Rob Lippincott as a graduate student who has never had a real full time job, barring internships and summer jobs, can be. I'm an editor of two graduate publications. I have two side companies with a single partner. I intern for a group downtown. (I'll go into a little more detail about that later.) My only sister is getting married in a month and two days. My grandmother's health is in such a state that I have lots of family emergencies. Oh yeah, and I take more than the full load of graduate classes every semester. I'm a busy lady. And that's why I use Amazon Prime.

Who has the time to drive to a bookstore and purchase a book? I'd rather pay more to get it delivered to me. (In this case, you get free 2 day shipping on any purchase for $80/year.) I usually don't have time to look at anything more quickly than 2 business days later anyway. I've also tried an organic grocery delivery service here in town. They were pricey and I don't really care if food is organic or not. But I needed one less thing on my to do list. Ultimately, I stopped using them because their UI was too high maintenance after they went through a redesign. I started getting deliveries that I hadn't thought I'd ordered and I canceled the service. The reps when I sent them frantic emails were not very understanding or accommodating. I guess they had too many people competing for their attention too.

--

I recently had a conversation with the big boss at my internship. My internship, I should mention, without using actual names that will pop up in searches, is for the state office of a national organization for older people.

Anyway, the state boss, while not the most technologically inclined person, also likes to play devil's advocate. I had long conversation, in which he lamented having to deal with 100+ emails a day that actually required some type of action or response. He also often had to respond to staff members' queries after hours. How, he asked, is this manageable? How is this reasonable?

Ever the technological optimist, I argued that an equilibrium point would be reached in the next 10 or 20 years. Otherwise, execs and managers would have to begin to be compensated accordingly; if they're spending more hours working, they should be paid for it.

My direct boss, I think, sees some generational differences. He recognizes that I don't feel obligated to respond to every single email if it doesn't warrant it or to people who I'm not responsible or beholden to.

In this way, I think many people in my generation-- or perhaps just uber geeky/dorky (I know there's a difference to some people, but I can't keep them straight) techie people like me-- are a little more savvy in managing info flow in this way. While many people at the organization that I'm interning for have hundreds or even thousands of emails (unread or not) in their inboxes, I use mine as a to do list. I intentionally keep my work outlook and my student/personal/student organizational/freelance gmail inboxes under 20 emails. I quickly address issues that need to be address and funnel emails into some sort of filing system away from the inbox.

Is this the wave of the future? How do y'all operating?

Should managers and execs be given trainings on managing information and incoming calls/emails/etc and work flow?