Talk:Sex in advertising

Archives (Index)

2012 2013 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Deletion of the Consumer culture section

Rjensen, why did you delete the Consumer culture section and replace it with the KamaSutra condoms in India section? How is that an improvement? And why do you think the KamaSutra condoms in India section belongs so high in the article? Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The old section had Less than one sentence on the topic of sex in advertising. It reads like a student paper on a different topic. This new addition is based on two scholarly studies --One in a scholarly journal and one in the major University press book, and covers India-- a very important part of the world. And it really is about sex in advertising Rjensen (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Now that I truly look at the section you replaced, I see that it was somewhat off-topic. The last paragraph could have been kept, but it seemed liked filler. Still, I don't think that the KamaSutra condoms in India section should be as high as you placed it in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 09:36, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay I changed the KamaSutra to become a subhead of "history". Rjensen (talk) 09:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

That's better. And, yeah, looking at the Consumer culture section that was there, you worked on it here and here, but the section was hopeless in that state. Flyer22 (talk) 09:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Update source 15. in Effectiveness section

When reading through the effectiveness section I came across the sentence " A 2005 research by MediaAnalyzer has found that less than 10% of men recalled the brand of sexual ads, compared to more than 19% of non sexual ads; a similar result was found in women (10.8% vs. 22.3%). It is hypothesized by that survey, that this is a result of a general numbing caused by over use of sexual stimuli[15] in advertising." I found this information to be interesting and wanted to check out the original source, only to find that it leads to a blog page. In the blog page there is another link that leads to a page in German and when translated it reads error 404 page not found. If a direct link to the MediaAnalyzer study could be provided that would be much better.Danteglauria (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review.

This article is very detailed, and covers a broad range of topics such as gender differences, type of advert, and cultural differences. I particularly enjoyed the inclusion of adverts that are not overtly sexual such as the Volkswagen advert with the pixelation. This was a beneficial addition to the article because it is an unusual perspective that would not immediately have been thought of. This article also used a variety of reliable and interesting sources which made it rich with information, in different formats. Furthermore, there are some unexpected findings included, such as the studies that showed sex in TV advertising to actually be overrated. This demonstrates that the authors have thoroughly researched the topic, and not just found information that confirms their initial expectations (that sex sells). My final compliment of this article is that the use of financial statistics were good, as they were examples of solid evidence to demonstrate how effective certain adverts are. This is much more informative than simply stating "This was an effective advert."

There is one citation that is missing, for the quotation "sex sells," this should be added in. Also, I would suggest that the paragraph on how effective sex in advertising is be shortened as it is quite long and dense. Furthermore, "effectiveness" is quite a clunky title so maybe something like "Success" would read better.

Lauren Haynes (talk) 11:42, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Overall, this was a great article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lauren Haynes (talk • contribs) 12:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review 2

Hi,

Great article guys, with a clear structure and headings to signpost relevant components. I really like the use of images to illustrate effective adverts, especially the 'sexual embeds' section. I also like how you offer a balanced perspective, demonstrating how sex is not always a persuasive selling tool. A very informative page.

Here are some suggestions for further improvements:

• The leading paragraph (introduction) seems quite short. Perhaps you could extend this to include more history of sexual advertising, and how this has changed over time to provide some background to your article. I have seen that you already have a history section, so a brief overview would be fine. Maybe add some references here too?
• You state that "research has shown that sexual arousal elicited by an advert subsequently affects the overall ad evaluation and the chances of future purchase." Do you have any statistics from this research to highlight consumer rates as evidence for the advert's effectiveness?
• In your gender differences section you could include how females and males are portrayed differently in adverts, rather than just the response that the sexes have towards the advert. Examples of sexual adverts including men would also be useful, as I feel like most of the article is focused around females. For instance, you mention that there has been an increase in the sexual objectification of men, but do not explicitly state how.
• There is a link to the Wikipedia page 'gift' in your gender differences section. Is this really relevant?
• In your cultural differences section it would be good to compare the attitudes of South Korean's with those in the UK, and possibly explain why these may differ.
• In your history section, the following sentences need a citation: "In several notable cases, sex in advertising has been claimed as the reason for increased consumer interest and sales", and "The agency head hit on the idea of a pleasurable condom, "So when the user hears the brand name, he says, "Wow. It's a turn on. Not a turn off.""

Overall, I am impressed with the quality of your article. I hope this feedback is useful. Catherine Turvey (talk) 15:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Hi,

Great construction and explanation here as well as interesting examples! Especially different types of adverts, I did not expect there were various kinds of sexual advertisements before, it is really interesting. Also gender differences and cultural differences are two main parts contributing to influences of the ads. it is really well mentioned in the section of the effectiveness of advertising.

Here are some suggestions regarding your contributions:

• I am not sure if that is just me or others feel the same, I am a bit confused about the difference between sexual referents and sexual embeds, maybe you could explain it with comparisons?
• In the gender difference section under effectiveness, it might be useful to include one or two examples to illustrate the difference more straight-forward.
• Also for the same section, as mentioned above in previous peer review, including the effects on gender difference from not only female centred ads. as well as male-focused ads. would be able to demonstrate the effect clearer.
• In the cultural difference section, you have included the study of South Korea mainly, it could be helpful to include more about Western culture as well and the influences of the culture difference onto the adverts.
• The body of effectiveness section was quite dense, is that possible to cut some down and show what was really important to mention?
• In the section of objectification, there was one link missing ‘These adverts can lead to self-objectification,’ the word self-objectification was not successfully linked to the wiki page.

All in all, there was really impressive information and I got a lot more insight of the concept now thank you guys! Good luck with your page! AnitaChen (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, Your work is a very good, interesting and detailed article. You covered all important areas in this topic. Photos are a great illustration of your examples and help to figure a main point of sexual content in advertising. It is also great that reader can look at this topic from different perspectives. You did a great job. Here are some suggestions, from me, to improve your article:

• You can add a link to “pin-up girls” in the introduction.
• I would add a photo to fill empty space at the beginning of article, next to introduction. It could be the first advertising with sex appeal or the most crystal clear one.
• Please, pay attention that sometimes both words of sub-headings 1 are upper case and sometimes only first word. It will look nicer if style will be the same, I think.
• You could add examples to physical attractiveness and sexual behaviour as you did in sexual referents and sexual embeds.
• It seems that you’ve missed citation in some parts. And when someone reads your article they can see: [citation needed].
• In last paragraph your link to self-objectification doesn’t work.
• You have a lot of good, illustrative photos related directly to content so I think that another photo, with Kim Kardashian, can be unnecessary.
• I would also change place of “History” paragraph directly after “The Concept” and try to compress whole text, because in my opinion it is a little bit too long. However, I understand that you wanted to place all important information.

It is a great piece of knowledge and it is a nice article to read!

Izabela.K (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Izabela.K

Peer Review

Hi, I find this article greatly engaging. I like the way you have listed all the different types of sexual advertising as some of them are quite subliminal and would not at first jump out as examples of sex in advertising such as the "sexual referents". However, I was not completely sure what the difference between "sexual referents" and "sexual embeds" is? They sound quite similar, so I would suggest highlighting the differences. I really like that you have included pictures and illustrations to support your examples. It demonstrates how very often we are so exposed to such tools that we have ceased to notice them as such. I like that you go back in history to mention the first example of a use of sex in advertising such as the Pearl Tobacco bran in 1871. I was quite curious to see what that looked like, however, it is the one that you have not included a picture of it. Considering it is the first one and quite important, I would maybe suggest including a picture? I also quite liked that you have included criticism of it according to different groups. I thought it might be a good idea to maybe include what possible consequences on sexual behaviour there might be as a result of sex in advertising? Is there any research done on that? Perhaps it encourages more promiscuity? Is that a reason it should be more limited? Just some food for thought. Overall, I think the article is very detailed and well written. Good job.