Direct Mail Gone Wild
by Adrian Hanft, (15 comments)
Remember that direct mail piece I showed you with the naked girl in the bathtub? While it may have been an impressive display of “one-to-one marketing” apparently it wasn’t appreciated by everyone who received it. I thought I would share a follow-up letter I received today from Toby Gadd, president of Montage Graphics who sent the mailing.
Dear Adrian,
Our recent mailing inviting our customers to a one-to-one marketing seminar resulted in a number of unfavorable responses. I do owe an explanation. In all honesty, I sent the pieces because I was fascinated (and apparenly temporarily blinded) by the way that the variable text interacted with the bubbles in the water and with the fog on the glass door. The images were prepared by an agency in Europe and widely used in Germany, France, and Canada where they have been very popular and not thought to be controversial.
When I passed along the negative feedback that I received, the agency was genuinely perplexed. It seems that there is a significant difference between what is acceptable in the United States and what is acceptable in France, Germany, and Canada - one that I, very regrettably, didn’t foresee. I pledge to pay greater attention.
Several people have inquired as to the age of the female model. According to the photographer, she is 22 years old. She was not coerced into participating.
Please rest assured that I stand corrected and that I will never send anything similar again.
Sincerely, Toby Gadd President
Comments (15)
Dan Lurie said:
Sometimes I just don’t understand Americans, even after living here for 17 years. What is so horrendously offensive about seeing a nude woman? I mean, its not like she’s going to claw your eyes out.
Posted on May 3, 2006
Papilionoidea said:
Crikey. That’s seriously messed up. What’s wrong with a … ahem … nude & pretty girl? I can understand the advertising agency was ruddy perplexed!
Oh, and Dan, perhaps someone’s wife did all the cmplaining upon seeing a pretty, nude, girl write her hubby’s name in bubbles? … Just a thought … Heh.
Posted on May 4, 2006
Drew Davies said:
Dan, I’ve lived here all my life and I still don’t understand why Americans are such prudes.
No reasonable person can call this “teen porn”. She’s not even exposed, for goodness sake. (Not to mention that she’s 22.)
p.s. Adrian, never underestimate the coolness of Canadians. On the whole, they are some of the most reasonable, clear-headed, down-to-earth people in the world.
Now, as far as whether or not a woman in a bathtub was appropriate design for the audience and the goals of a one-to-one marketing seminar, that’s another debate altogether….
Posted on May 4, 2006
dj_sissor said:
Some of the first “Americans” to come to this land were “Puritans”. I believe that is where our prudness comes from! [pbbbbt!]
I’m like, what ever as far as how people have responded negatively to the ad piece. I was more facinated with how they managed to individualized the name in the bubbles. I mean HOW did they manage to automate that? As a whole, the ad really would just be good for a younger male audience, but it certainly works well for that one.
Posted on May 4, 2006
Mike Miller said:
Drew, Dan, Papilolio, do any of you have kids? partiularly daughters?
Sure, you could easily dispell Americans as prudes because we have limits to what can and can’t be done in the way of enterainment & advertising.
Personally, as an American, I like it that way.
As a dad of a little girl, I am glad that there are different standards here than that of other countries. So many ads that use only the sex apeal tactic chip away (wether you agree or not) at the idea that a girl/woman cannot be valued unless they have a certain image and use that image.
As a designer, I find ads that take this approach sad and showing creative laziness. Just like when you look through an Archive magazine, you will see some highly creative work and a bevy of “well, we don’t have any good ideas so let’s go the naked people/shock/lowest common denominator route” work. Sad. Lazy.
Just my thoughts. I happen to agree with Adrian.
Posted on May 4, 2006
Adrian Hanft said:
First of all, my comments were loaded with sarcasm and meant to be funny. But if you guys want to get serious about it we can.
Drew, let me see if I understand you: If a woman is represented as a kitten, that is offensive. But if a young girl is naked in a bathtub seductively writing your name in the bubbles that is perfectly fine? Wow, maybe I don’t understand Americans either.
For the rest of you who are looking for an excuse to hate America (that is the popular thing to do, isn’t it) you are out of line. As far as I can tell, this was a very limited mailing. To think that this is representative of America at large is a bit of a stretch. The complaints from the recipients just show that the mailing was wrong for the audience that it was sent to. That is supposed to be the strength of direct mail: targeting! The design (morally right or wrong) was wrong for that reason.
Posted on May 4, 2006
Kyle said:
Twenty-two? No way.
Posted on May 4, 2006
JonSel said:
First on my mind is that I’m somewhat fascinated with how this was done technologically. I want to know more about that.
Regarding the actual image of the woman, I agree that it is simply a lazy come-on and the agency should have worked harder. Offensive? Not to me. Stupid? Yeah.
Posted on May 4, 2006
Nate Voss said:
Adrian, I don’t think anyone’s hating on america here, just the overdeveloped sense of “sex-is-bad” that perpetuates the majority of the country. And it does. A young (22, remember) girl naked in a tub seductively writing your name in the bubbles printed on a postcard doesn’t actually hurt anyone. Except people who think sex is dirty.
As for Mike, if you have a young daughter, you must also (I assume) have a wife? She was once your daughter’s age, but she grew up and became a woman eventually and made a baby with you. Kids grow up. Your daughter will eventually get married, have babies and grandkids; and if she’s ever 22 and modeling and does a photoshoot like this, it’s only going to be gross to you. (I’m joking here! Otherwise this would be the part where you punch me in the face)
As a final note, Adrian, devaluing all women by lumping them together into a stereotype (the kitten) is pretty rough. This does not lump all women together, it is not a representation of the modern woman. It’s just a girl in a tub.
Posted on May 4, 2006
Nate Voss said:
Does anyone else notice the Google Ad at the bottom of this story for Girls Gone Wild? That is hilarious.
Posted on May 4, 2006
Bennett said:
Having been a luddite for a week, I’m back on the computer and have to throw my thoughts in there. The fact that she is 22 has no real weight for this piece (besides that fact that this postcard would be completely reprehensible if she was really as old as she looked). The only thing that really matters is that she looks like she is 14, so that is the only piece of information the viewing audience has to go from. Even if it is not actually child porn, it is using the image of underage sexuality to promote a product. Wether you are from France, China or the US of A, I don’t understand how you cannot find that offensive.
The other problem with this has already been presented. i.e. It is an easy and lazy solution that actually detracts from the message.
Side note: I find it funny that my email spell check doesn’t see “luddite” as a real word.
Posted on May 8, 2006
Bill Kerr said:
I hear ya on that, Bennett… if she looks 14 to a good part of the audience… then I think it is inappropriate.
On a personal note… her age did not cross my mind when I first saw it. She looks like she is probably 18-22 to me. I know 26 year-olds who look much younger. But one opinion does not make it correct… design is communication for the masses.
Posted on May 8, 2006
Toby Gadd said:
Adrian,
I simply fail to understand the motivation of the sarcastic and cynical editorializing that you embedded in my apology letter before posting it online. Since you seem to be very concerned with what’s acceptable in America, your approach is just that much more surprising.
The letter that I sent to you (and the other recipients of the controversial mailer), was sincere and heartfelt. I made an error in judgment, and I apologized and candidly explained how it occurred.
Adrian, it seems that you and I live in the same town in Colorado, but I do not believe that we’ve yet met. Perhaps its time that we do? Please feel free to call my office at (970) 484-2330 so that we may make arrangements.
Sincerely,
Toby Gadd
Montage Graphics, Inc., 225 North Lemay Ave., Suite 1, Fort Collins, CO 80524, (970) 484-2330
Posted on May 8, 2006
Adrian said:
Toby, My cynicism comes from a general distrust in direct mail, I suppose. I get so much junk mail and deceptive mailers that distrust and cynicism is an instinctive reaction. My distrust is so great that even your apology (as heartfelt as it may be) seemed shallow. How do I know that it wasn’t just another excuse for you go get your name and company in front of me? I think that is the unfortunate side effect of our culture of spam and junk mail: people don’t trust their mail. Based on your comment here, I will take you at your word and accept your explanation that it was an honest mistake. I apologize if my negativity offended you.
Posted on May 8, 2006
Adrian Hanft said:
I decided to remove my cynical commentary from Toby’s letter. In hindsight it wasn’t as funny as I thought, and after actually talking to Toby (a real “one to one” interatcion), he has proved to be a decent guy who made an honest mistake. For all of you who were amazed by this technology, don’t let this postcard stop you from giving him some business.
Posted on May 16, 2006