« Museum Of Modern Tweets | Main| The more things change, the more they stay the same. »
Just know that this really does seem like a load of horseshit from ABC and Fox.
Being an avowed heterosexual, I'm up, er, down for any kind of ad featuring a sexy lady. And the lady in this LB ad is definitely that. However, Fox and ABC declined to show the ad without edits and or time segment constraints.
Lane Bryant, obviously, is playing the double-standard card. However, aside from the use of the description "groundbreaking Cacique commercial" in their blog post, I'm inclined to agree with them. What do you guys think? Check it out for yourself.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341ce32a53ef0134800eb1c5970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Don't ask why I was checking out the Lane Bryant blog.:
Record a comment from your computer right now. Be pithy.
Everything I need to know about advertising I learned from Star Wars
Wait, are we commenting on the not-shy nature of the ad, or the fact that this isn't the typical rail-thin model?
Either way, TV execs are a bunch of tight asses. Considering how they dress up their "news" women, they should allow straight porn on the ads. Who's the pimp in this equation anyway?
Posted by:Prescott Perez-Fox | April 22, 2010 at 03:39 PM
The networks need to either decide they are running these types of ads (Victoria's Secret, Lane Bryant, etc.) or not. To allow some companies, but reject others seems to be a double-standard.
Point goes to Lane Bryant on this one. By the amount of coverage given to it on the news over the weekend, they certainly got their money's worth from this ad.
Posted by:Suzanne | April 27, 2010 at 11:01 AM
I think the funniest part about this ad actually isn't the ad itself. There was a remix in which the text message read "McRib is Back!"...and CNN thought it was the real thing. Check it out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyBAD_ylWbg
Posted by:Alec | May 06, 2010 at 08:25 AM