I've been in advertising for ten years. While the design isn't great (and MacMall's logo is cheesy), that ad WILL sell.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MacMall ad on the back cover of current MacLife: SERIOUSLY?
- Thread starter j5045096
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
The dichotomy of the ad with regards to girl/mac doesn't exactly make an ad more or less tasteless. Rather, I believe your issue is that there is a girl, a good looking girl, in what you've deemed to be lingerie (now I've seen my share of this and that doesn't look like it) who appears out of place therefore to you out of place is equal to tasteless. As your opinion it is okay.
The issue I have with your entire soap box rant is that you deem the fact that MacMall decided to allow an ad such as this on the back cover to be reason to never shop there. The girl is not hanging her whoohah all over the place, she's standing there in what I consider to be a mildly seductive pose acting as nothing more than a focal point for the ad. It grabbed the attention of the reader and specifically grabbed your attention enough so that you have now started quite the discussion. You've done exactly what the ad hoped you would do, drew attention to it.
I get your points that you have this totally ridged way of looking at things in such a way that you deem what other people do to be tasteless, but I think you have to open your eyes a little more and realize that this method of thinking rarely gets you anywhere. Some here may agree with you but the way you deliver it with such a self righteous tone makes me laugh at the fact that you believe GM and their ads teach kids that they're entitled .... what ad did you watch growing up that taught you to be so self righteous?
Being as you seem to have an interest in psychology, you do realize that no matter how valid your points may be, the way you deliver them is what puts people off, right? That was the distinct difference between your post and mine (since you decided to align them).
Calm thyself, dude.
LOL. It doesn't show that much. OP, have you ever been to a beach or go to a park on a warm day?
MR should have drama queen title for some people.
MR should have drama queen title for some people.
I've ignored your posts but I'll chime in: my wife is gorgeous and she trusts me. I don't have a hidden stash of magazines that I wouldn't want her to know I have. She trusts me. It's hard to be a TRUSTWORTHY guy in 2009 - you don't have to go find stuff, it comes to you (i.e. the Victoria's Secret catalogs that come to the house). MacLife shouldn't be like one of those catalogs and not that my wife ever even saw this issue of MacLife because it only took me 5 minutes to read what little content there was but if it was sitting on my nightstand with that ad face up, I would understand if she was like "what the heck?"
That's not the point. The point was how you posted it. If you had been a little less vague with your "relevant" post, it'd still be there.
It's for hot women wearing nothing but black lace lingerie and their iPod earphones, keep up.
Yes. Magazine sales, as opposed to newspapers, are actually extremely good. Print isn't going anywhere- especially when it comes to magazines.
How many times do you need to tell us that your wife trusts you?
Dude, if your wife is going to take issue with your viewing of this ad or a VS catalog that comes in the post (we're talking about looking at it not rubbing one out over it) then you and your wife were made for one another. If I ever see a magazine like this with a lady on it and I give whatever man I am with grief then I deserve to be kicked to the curb and slapped along the way.
They shoul have an alternate ad with Lee on it for all the women. However, it would probably be construed as false advertising.
+1 Agreed. Technically +2 because I agree with both points.
Haha. Exactly.
What I think: The OP has a point that the girl doesnt necessarily fit with the ad, but the way he comes across is that it is the girls fault for just trying to make a buck. MacMall is just trying to make more money and sex sells. I think this can pretty much be closed now, but it will probably go on. I personally wouldnt buy the product due to the woman, but I can see some people subliminally falling for it.
But this is your perspective, which is just as valid as the OP's perspective and every shade of gray in between.
They shoul have an alternate ad with Lee on it for all the women. However, it would probably be construed as false advertising.
Haha! Thanks. BTW- I do get hit on by women a lot. They just don't do it for me.
You may agree with me, but I never meant that advertising that promoted good prices and value were better than the ads you are referring to.
That type of advertisement stopped in the early 1990s because they stopped working, and there's a reason why ads have become what they are today. If attractive people didn't sell products, they'd change to another technique.
Perhaps they're reverting back to value-based advertising because of the economy. I don't know. I'm not even sure if that's true. It's just a personal observation. The flood of "Buy 1 item, get the other for 50%" deals out at the shopping mall is probably what did it.
I didn't say that...just asked a general question: why is the ad in there?
Of course. But I did not start the thread.
And I have to ask the OP again, if you believe GM and their ads teach kids that they're entitled .... what ad did you watch growing up that taught you to be so self righteous?
Haha! Thanks. BTW- I do get hit on by women a lot. They just don't do it for me.
You're a good looking guy, its to be expected.
I know what you meant, i'm just saying that how many are perceiving your rant. The ad is there because it will sell and every dollar counts in this economy. Slap a hot women on a tech ad and your profits will increase at least two fold.
WTF does a magazine have to do with trust anyway? Personally I am not threatened by a photo of a scantily clad woman. I rather enjoy looking at good looking women myself. We're awesome.
To be fair, I don't think the target is exclusively men.
There is the potential group of "I wish I looked like that" and to a lesser extent, the "I look hot like that" ad-identifying women too.
But it's mostly men.
And it's only about catching the eye, hoping you'll stop for just a second to consider their ad. Which you did. Negatively, but it worked!
It's like email spam for your eyeballs.
Of course. But I did not start the thread.
And I have to ask the OP again, if you believe GM and their ads teach kids that they're entitled .... what ad did you watch growing up that taught you to be so self righteous?
Probably the same one who taught you to be self-righteous back...which is what you're doing. We only get offended out of our own self-righteousness. I'll admit to mine in these areas; how about you?
And my self-righteousness probably came from watching a hard working mom and dad not just hand things to us as kids but taught us to work for it and buy what you can afford (sound like a problem in our country?).
Why yes, we are.I rather enjoy looking at good looking women myself. We're awesome.
The ad works for me. No offense, men, but I think that she would catch my eye more than a man would. No one ask me about my sex life.
I rather enjoy looking at good looking women myself. We're awesome.
<shakes fist at sky> A pox on you, eD!
Attachments
- Status