Breaking news: Sex sells

Ads use sex to sell products. There, I’ve said it. A remarkable observation. Shocking, in fact. At least that is the sense one gets from the periodic outrage that comes, usually from conservatives, at some attempt or another to earn a buck through appeal to eros. Moreover, the breathlessness of the reaction makes it seem like an unheard-of event.

Thus it is with this Burger King advertisement that not-too-subtly suggests sexual activity associated in the popular imagination with the antics of a former President and his thong-bearing, or is it “baring,” twinkie. The reaction against the ad has been fast and furious—and predictable. The ad itself is crude to the point of parody, not funny due to its hamfistedness that allows even the Low I.Q.-American community in on “the joke.” It likely will be pulled within a couple of weeks or a month. The sandwich will be renamed or even dropped from the menu. The protesters and critics will bask in self-satisfaction at their success.

Until next time. That ad is genius. It taps into a basic human drive, sexuality. Its brazenness also corresponds to the outer boundaries of our culture’s sexualization. Fifty years ago that ad would have gone nowhere, because Americans then had not been sensitized (or desensitized) to the point where the ad could become “plausible.” Such an ad would be so alien in, say, Saudi Arabia, that it would not achieve its purpose. No Saudi ad agency would even think of running such an ad. The reaction would not be public controversy. It would be prison.

In our culture, however, the ad creates “buzz.” It is not so “tame” as to fit comfortably within the norm of our current standard of sexuality. It’s not, for example, just an ad for Viagra on the morning (!) Weather Channel that regales the audience of all ages with the dangers (though, to be fair, not the opportunities) from four-hour erections. Nor is it a chirpy ad, complete with helpful explanatory diagrams, during the dinner hour about this or that menstrual flow product guaranteed to make women feel fresher and more secure even while engaging in whatever activity they want. Those ads, too, would have been beyond the pale fifty years ago, ignoring for this point Big Pharma’s soon-to-be-curtailed inventiveness that made Viagra possible.

The Burger King ad is just crude enough to break through the fog of our accustomed dosage of crudeness. So the ad goes viral and the company has bought an enviable amount of publicity for itself. It’s not the ad itself, for which it has paid, that produces a return on the investment. The main strike, the Mother Lode, is the derivative publicity, the free mentions of the company, that keep its name before the public. Keep in mind that the ad was produced in Singapore for their markets, yet it is causing controversy in the U.S. The company really isn’t expecting people to flock to its outlets demanding “Seven Inchers.” The sandwich is just another hamburger. Does anyone care whether a burger is round or oblong? The company is trying to keep its name in front of the public. They’re playing defense, not offense, to ward off its competitors.

Sure, people will say they will boycott Burger King. But most will soon return, or be cajoled into returning by some toy promotion designed to bring in the kids. The ad will be gone and forgotten, but the Burger King name will not be. If people find this offensive, by all means don’t patronize Burger King. I refuse to buy various products over political or social issues, but I have to admit that often it is only as an adjunct to other reasons, such as lack of taste or inferior quality. But don’t create an additional firestorm by organizing official boycotts that only gin up the publicity mill. Without that secondary publicity generated by the controversy, a too-sexualized ad runs the risk of defeating its purpose. Viewers will be watching the “action,” not noticing the product or the company.

The ads reflect the culture and, to the extent our culture is oversexualized, so will be the ads. The process of changing that culture takes time and slow-moving massive shifts that go well beyond protesting a commercial. It is best, then, that we act quietly and individually on many fronts so as gradually to remove the oxygen from such advertisement campaigns. And always keep in mind that these matters are relative. Whatever the time, some ads will be seen as “oversexualized,” too raw, and over-the-line of decency. Sellers will always try to keep their product on the minds of customers, and if their competitors have cornered the market on wholesomeness, the desire for brand identification will have them go the risque route.

For more delving into “food porn ads,” all in the name of research, you understand, see this collection of ads and helpful analysis. Why does reading this article feel like “reading the articles” in Playboy magazine (in the interest of research)? Actually, I think the article is too alarmist in its implied conclusions, such as a connection between sexualized food ads and seventeen year-olds deciding to become strippers and fourteen year-olds deciding to lose their virginity. Try to keep a sense of proportion. The connection is between the ads and the general culture and the popularity of strippers and the culture and the early loss of virginity and the culture (though, in fairness, the notion of 14-year olds losing their virginity, while regrettable, is hardly new, even in the U.S.).

Unlike some of these ads, including the Burger King ad, the Bud Light commercial is uproariously funny. And the Carl’s Junior ad, which seems to be part of a series with similar motifs of dripping burgers, displays a sexuality that might have a more resistant researcher running for some ice cubes or a cold shower. The former ad is humorous precisely because it taps into our (still) existing embarrassment about buying porn in public and the experience of many males who have found themselves in a similar, though likely less-extreme predicament. (I am making no confessions here, BTW.) But the latter ad is an obvious flight of fancy, not the least for the reason mentioned by the author that, having eaten at these fast food establishments over the years, “I have yet to see any of these women showing up to partake.” But that doesn’t stop the powerful pull of the libido, nor businesses’ (s)exploitation of that pull.