While sex may sell, there are limits p.10

Posted
By: David Noack A newspaper advertisement, which featured a scantily-clad Tyra Banks promoting the recent Victoria's Secret Wall Street cyber-fashion show, was a bit too revealing for The Wall Street Journal.
The full-page, black and white ad, which ran on Feb. 3, was rejected by the paper. Instead, a more subdued ad featuring another model wearing a bit more was substituted.
Richard Tofel, a spokesman for Dow Jones & Company, the Journal's parent company, says the original ad did not meet the paper's advertising acceptability guidelines. He says the Columbus, Ohio-ad agency, Resource Marketing Inc., was contacted and another ad was used.
"They submitted an ad for publication. We told them that we had some problems with that ad. They submitted a substitute that was acceptable, and we were happy to publish it and we did," says Tofel.
He declined to discuss details, advertising guidelines, or whether the ad was too risqu? for the paper's predominately business-oriented market. Tofel would not say how much that particular ad cost. He did say, however, that a similar full-page, black and white ad, would run just shy of $149,000.
Tofel says the paper did not ask for a change in the copy of the ad. The change was made by the ad agency.
Resource Marketing did not return telephone calls seeking comment.
Ann Marie Kerwin, who covers print advertising for Advertising Age magazine, says newspapers apply their own standards of taste for ads.
"Every newspaper has in their ad contracts that they have the right to reject anything that they think is in poor taste. It probably was just that they wanted to not be so brazen about what was being portrayed. These things always come down to the individual taste of the ad staff or the publication," says Kerwin.
But while the Journal rejected the ad, other newspapers were more than willing to run it. The ad also appeared in The New York Times and USA Today.
Melissa Synder, vice president of marketing at USA Today, saw no problem with the ad.
"If Tyra Banks had been less covered certainly it was starting to approach the line over whether we should take this or not. We felt that it did not cross the line. ? She's covered up as much as some women are in a bathing suit, so we saw no need to ask them to revise it, change it, or do anything with it," says Synder.
She said last week the paper rejected an advertisement from a major brand name that they felt did not belong in the paper.
"It was another well-known company and because we didn't take the ad, I'm not going to be unfair and name them. But it's certainly a name that everybody knows, we just felt the presentation of their ad was not appropriate for USA Today," says Synder.
The Victoria's Secret ad was part of a campaign to get people to go online to a fashion show that was broadcast live over the Internet. In addition to the print ads announcing the fashion Webcast, there was also a 30-second ad played during the Super Bowl, which the lingerie maker says boosted its online traffic by more than 1 million after the TV ad appeared.
The fashion Webcast drew more than 1.5 million visitors to the site, which resulted in a drain on computers and provided choppy video. But company officials hailed the event as a success.
Intimate Brands, Inc. is a specialty retailer of women's apparel, lingerie, and personal care products. The company operates under its Victoria's Secret and Bath and Body Works brand names.
?(The Wall Street Journal rejected the ad on the left, but ran the ad on the right from Victoria's Secret.) [Caption]
?(Editor & Publisher Web Site: http:www.mediainfo.com) [caption]
?(copyright: Editor & Publisher February 6,) [caption]

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here