Why are designer's print ads so horribly out of touch?

[intent]

Originally Posted by TRINI

Are you ******* kidding me?

That line of D&G ads almost overflow with homosexuality.

Same line of ads:

WTF is going on in this picture?

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by intent

WTF is going on in this picture?

Well, it's originally a Japanese word and it rhymes with "mukkake."

 

[Raxxman]

I agree that they're not out of touch.

That's the style of clothes they're making. If it's not your thing (and good god is not my thing) then you're not the target audience. I mean you can argue that they shouldn't be advertisng in GQ, but that's a different issue all together.

 

[lee_44106]

Originally Posted by JG000

I enjoy reading men's magazines (GQ, Esquire, Details and the like)

Blah.....blah.......blah.....................


Does your average GQ reader actually want to see these overly feminine, insanely skinny "models"? These images appeal to nobody and sell very little.

After viewing, I'm turned off by these brands and find the clothes less desirable. I like a lot of the advertised apparel, in terms of aesthetic, but simply can't "see myself" wearing it. .


Haters don't hate........

You must be a fat-ass.

Seriously, go to the gym and lose some weight.

Eat less too, that'll help you lose weight.

 

[JG000]

Originally Posted by TRINI

Are you ******* kidding me? That line of D&G ads almost overflow with homosexuality. Same line of ads:

There's a reason I didn't link to any of those ads. The one I showed you is applicable, those are absolutely not. However, IF you were to isolate the appearance of the models alone, then yes, I like them more than the bean pole transgenders who haven't gone through puberty.

Originally Posted by Shirtmaven

Have you ever bought anything from Versace gucci( other then shoes) calvin Klein(other then underwear or jeans)
Honestly I don't own much from those lines, to your point. But that has more to do with the price point than me not liking the design. I WOULD wear a decent amount of it, if I could afford it (and I will be able to soon). Their price points are different beast, and are indiscriminate to any demographic besides income level.

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

How do you know? Have you talked to 90% of GQs readers?
I actually am pretty keen to their base. I spend a lot of time looking into this stuff. The average GQ reader is a shade or two away from a Maxim/ Men's Health reader. If you've read GQ lately you'd see them trying to bleed into that demographic. Zach Galifinakis is on the cover for a reason. Advertisers have not caught up. Details actually sent everybody on their mailing list a link to a survey and contest. Want to know what the survey was about? They showed the ads above (all of the JPEGs I posted are actually directly linked from the survey). They then asked readers which ads they felt they related to. Think about why that reader opinion poll was hatched for a second. Hint: it's not because these ads are effective. These brands are wasting tons of $$$$ running niche advertisement to a niche they've inherently secured.

 

[JG000]

Originally Posted by lee_44106

Haters don't hate........

You must be a fat-ass.

Seriously, go to the gym and lose some weight.

Eat less too, that'll help you lose weight.

I'd be willing to bet that I'm in better shape than you and weigh less.

The difference between myself and the aforementioned models is that I have testicles.

 

[Master Squirrel]

Originally Posted by aj_del

photoshopped into

Whew. For a moment I was afraid my girlfriend would want a rib removal.

 

[bigbris1]

Originally Posted by aj_del

I'll take 3, please.

 

[Cary Grant]

Originally Posted by JG000

I enjoy reading men's magazines (GQ, Esquire, Details and the like)

While the value of their content may be debatable, can we all agree 90% of the advertisements they run are pathetically off-kilter?


Seriously... who greenlights this stuff? Does your average GQ reader actually want to see these overly feminine, insanely skinny "models"? These images appeal to nobody and sell very little.

They're accomplishing the opposite of their intention. After viewing, I'm turned off by these brands and find the clothes less desirable. I like a lot of the advertised apparel, in terms of aesthetic, but simply can't "see myself" wearing it. On the other hand, if more "real" and relate-able looking models were featured, I'd (consciously and subconsciously) feel more compelled to like the brand.

As someone who has a degree and career in marketing... these ads are simply atrocious. I'm not expecting any real answers in this thread, rather just looking to vent a little bit. I have a feeling many of you feel the same way.


As someone who also works in and around marketing, I know that GQ tests the hell out of their ads... and they and others then gravitate towards what responds well.

 

[ChicagoMediaMan]

Who says they are out of touch? GQ and Esquire aren't targeting themselves to (most) men on this forum who are into classic styling.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by JG000

There's a reason I didn't link to any of those ads. The one I showed you is applicable, those are absolutely not. However, IF you were to isolate the appearance of the models alone, then yes, I like them more than the bean pole transgenders who haven't gone through puberty. Honestly I don't own much from those lines, to your point. But that has more to do with the price point than me not liking the design. I WOULD wear a decent amount of it, if I could afford it (and I will be able to soon). Their price points are different beast, and are indiscriminate to any demographic besides income level. I actually am pretty keen to their base. I spend a lot of time looking into this stuff. The average GQ reader is a shade or two away from a Maxim/ Men's Health reader. If you've read GQ lately you'd see them trying to bleed into that demographic. Zach Galifinakis is on the cover for a reason. Advertisers have not caught up. Details actually sent everybody on their mailing list a link to a survey and contest. Want to know what the survey was about? They showed the ads above (all of the JPEGs I posted are actually directly linked from the survey). They then asked readers which ads they felt they related to. Think about why that reader opinion poll was hatched for a second. Hint: it's not because these ads are effective. These brands are wasting tons of $$$$ running niche advertisement to a niche they've inherently secured.

Originally Posted by JG000

I'd be willing to bet that I'm in better shape than you and weigh less. The difference between myself and the aforementioned models is that I have testicles.
I don't know that I've ever actually resorted to this sort of categorical comment on this forum, as I generally like a good discussion, even when our views are very different. Nevertheless, you really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and come across as a total jackass.

 

[JG000]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

I don't know that I've ever actually resorted to this sort of categorical comment, as I generally like a good discussion, even when our views are very different. Nevertheless, you really have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
Clever that you cherry picked the 2nd quote and presented it with no context. I was responding to being called a "fat ass" and being told to "go to the gym". Nice try though.

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by JG000

Clever that you cherry picked the 2nd quote and presented it with no context. I was responding to being called a "fat ass" and being told to "go to the gym". Nice try though.
Lee's a nice guy, and quite skinny (IIRC). Besides, he was being tongue in cheek; there's a reason people use the phrase "lurk moar, noob."

 

[JG000]

Here's a study done on GQ's readership. As you'll see, (and as I claimed) it's essentially interchangeable with Men's Health. http://www.webster.edu/medialiteracy...ividuality.pdf ^Read that, as it proves my point.

On closer inspection, however, the individualist who reads Men’s Health and the individualist who reads GQ have more in common than not.

The advertisements seek to reinforce the existing self-image mythos of the rugged individual male who’s at the top of his own game and therefore at the top of everyone else’s

As I thumbed through the advertisements in GQ I was inundated with the rugged male motif.

The attitude is the writer is just like you while the ads emanate, “You are (can be) one of us.”

Now... like I said... these type of ads:

HARDLY rugged. And not something I aspire for. They LACK the male motif that the above study champions. As stated earlier...

I like a lot of the advertised apparel, in terms of aesthetic, but simply can't "see myself" wearing it.

These ads are a flop. They appeal to a nice that constitutes a small and irrelevant portion of GQ subscribers. So try again.

 

[rach2jlc]

^My apologies for doubting your amazing brilliance. Geez-oh-pete.

Anyway, my ignore list has just found a new recruit; I need smarmy entitled douchebags with a correspondence-course Marketing degree like I need a shotgun blast to the face.