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

[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? For example...

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.

 

[intent]

To the contrary, I believe these ads work. Women buy clothes for men.

 

[rach2jlc]

I think it just shows that you're out of touch. The ads are very much in line with current trends/aesthetics. If you personally don't like those aesthetics, or don't follow the runway seasons... that's fine... but it doesn't make sense to extrapolate your personal opinion/dislike to the whole fashion industry as their lack of insight/failing. Obviously, this stuff sells, and it sells BETTER because they pay attention to what people are buying, the aesthetic trends of the moment, etc.

If you look at the runway shows, what designers are making, and the overall direction of current menswear, I hardly see what you can call "off kilter" about them.

 

[aj_del]

photoshopped into

 

[patrickBOOTH]

Fashion has its place. It is exactly what it is: fashion. I am just bothered when people think it is the ultimate in craftmanship.

 

[JG000]

Originally Posted by rach2jlc

I think it just shows that you're out of touch. The ads are very much in line with current trends/aesthetics and have been since 2001-2002, when Dior/YSL RG started the whole "super skinny" trend. If you look at the runway shows, what designers are making, and the overall direction of current menswear, I hardly see what you can call "off kilter" about them. If you wear traditional suits, RLPL, Bespoke whatever, sure. But, if you follow fashion, it's just what it is. I'm not saying I like it or not, but it's sort of like saying, "Who designs these new-fangled cars and cell phones these days?" If you don't like it, buy a jitterbug.
I completely disagree. You're ignoring the fact that these ads simply don't strike a cord with the end user (90% of them, atleast). I understand the appeal/ connection these ads have for runway models, women and elite fashionistas. But that group constitutes a mere fringe of GQ's readership and not the base. There's a reason that all of the sudden GQ started running features like "25 Ways To Dress Better For Less" and "The Best Suits Under $500". College kids and 20 something's are reading GQ, not Scandinavian boutique connoisseurs. In comparison, this recent ad does a better job of reaching "warm-blooded males" IMO. http://i54.tinypic.com/2ibiwld.jpg The models are muscular, have full faces, scruffy beards and look like they watch football/ date women. I don't think D&G hit this one out of the park, but the ad works. I also like Tommy Hilfiger's "Meet the Hilfigers" campaign. Attractive 20 somethings in patch blazers and cardigans. I can dig it: http://usa.tommy.com/tommy/browse/la...04%3Acat620018 Just because print ads feature models doesn't mean they need to be androgynous bean poles.

 

[Shirtmaven]

Have you ever bought anything from
Versace
gucci( other then shoes)
calvin Klein(other then underwear or jeans)

if not, you are not the intended customer.

all of the looks are for rock stars or kept boy-toys.

 

[divitius]

Those two at the top look like a cross between Tolkien elves and Navi

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by JG000

I completely disagree. You're ignoring the fact that these ads simply don't strike a cord with the end user (90% of them, atleast). .
How do you know? Have you talked to 90% of GQs readers? Obviously they DO connect with a reader, because this stuff sells. If they don't strike a cord with YOU, that's fine. And, as others have said, do you generally follow seasonal trends/runway shows, or go shopping for Versace, Gucci, or CK Collection? What brands do you generally buy? High fashion is about selling an image/fantasy/romantic idea of something. It's not about "let's see how this sweater looks on an "average guy." Seeing a Dior Homme suit on some guy with a muffin top, 24 inch inseam, and sloping shoulders hardly seems like a good idea. The brands you pictured above all have a particular aesthetic and style that does NOT work well on an "average" or "Scruffy" faced guy. P.s. The whole "Look like they play football and date women" thing is hilarious. Who do you think buys MOST of this high-fashion stuff? Your average dude out watching the big USC game isn't exactly in the CK Collection store on Madison Avenue feeling the latest fabrics for Zucchelli's AW collection.

 

[Sartorial1]

Advertisers in conjunction with the purveyors of fashion have decided (in their minds) how we should look.
Is it how you want to look?
You have a choice when it comes to you.

 

[TRINI]

Originally Posted by JG000

In comparison, this recent ad does a better job of reaching "warm-blooded males" IMO.

http://i54.tinypic.com/2ibiwld.jpg

The models are muscular, have full faces, scruffy beards and look like they watch football/ date women. I don't think D&G hit this one out of the park, but the ad works.

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

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

Same line of ads:

 

[Makeshift_Robot]

So much presumptuousness in this thread.

"I have a marketing degree, so I know without reading any demographic indices that these ads are not reaching GQ's consumer base."

"Since I don't like these ads, no one will like these ads."

"Standards of masculine beauty or appeal will always be the same."

"Any brand that isn't Lobb or Levis is targeted at rockstars and man-whores."

 

[Makeshift_Robot]

Originally Posted by TRINI

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

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

Same line of ads:

Haha amazing.

 

[Shirtmaven]

Originally Posted by TRINI

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

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

Same line of ads:

the girl in ad #3 is saying to herself
"I knew I should have gone to that sports bar if I wanted to get laid"

 

[rach2jlc]

Originally Posted by Shirtmaven

the girl in ad #3 is saying to herself "I knew I should have gone to that sports bar if I wanted to get laid"
I think she's saying, "Oh crap, I should have KNOWN that a bar called 'The Manhole' wouldn't be for me."

Originally Posted by Makeshift_Robot

So much presumptuousness in this thread. "I have a marketing degree, so I know without reading any demographic indices that these ads are not reaching GQ's consumer base." "Since I don't like these ads, no one will like these ads." "Standards of masculine beauty or appeal will always be the same." "Any brand that isn't Lobb or Levis is targeted at rockstars and man-whores."

Originally Posted by Makeshift_Robot

Haha amazing.
+1. "See, now HERE'S a manly ad... look at this fellow, he's a sailor, definitely looking to pick up chicks on shore leave. This works for the 18-35 US Midwest market demographic."