Features
In the post #MeToo era, does sex still sell? 4 industry experts reveal their naked thoughts
Marketers around the world have been scrambling to adapt their visual identity and messaging to a post #MeToo era. To investigate if the long-held adage "sex sells" still rings true in 2022, Seja Al Zaidi asks four very different, esteemed women in the industry what they think - and their thoughts are more provocative than you may expect.
“Sex sells” is a phrase so ubiquitous, you’d be hard-pressed to find a single person who hasn’t internalised it in light of their attitude to branding, media, products and advertising.
However, in 2022, consumers choose products and develop brand allegiances based on an alignment with their moral standards. In a post #MeToo era, those standards are more pronounced, and certainly more influential in every sphere governing modern corporate life and messaging.
Last year, Victoria’s Secret, long known for its glamorous hot pink and bejeweled aesthetics, ditched its menagerie of fit supermodel ‘Angels’ in lieu of a more diverse cast of brand representatives. VS established that ‘What Women Want’ is to see stretch marks and transgender models on their website, and so it pivoted, in a move deemed by many to be superficial and performative in light of serious internal harassment and misconduct allegations.
To get to the bottom of the truth behind this pervasive phrase, I asked four industry experts what they think.
Sue Parker, owner at DARE Group Australia
Sue Parker, owner of DARE Group Australia
The phrase ‘sex sells’ is so ubiquitous and widespread – everyone’s heard it at least once in their life. But what does it even mean? What does it truly mean to ‘sell sex’?
Traditionally the phrase referred to placing “gorgeous buxom thin women under 30 with coquettish demeanours” in campaigns. The origins were based on a stereotypical belief that every man can be manipulated by boobs and bums to buy any product. But the phrase is a furphy which is incorrect. Sex and sexuality definitely draw massive attention. But it doesn’t necessarily equate to sales and dollars in the bank.
We are a long way from the type of 1970’s Tarax Black Label Lemonade campaigns with the star of the Number 96 TV show Abigail pouting with huge cleavage about men’s satisfaction. Yet in 2019, a LJ Hooker home sale advertisement was banned for the offensive actions of simulating sex on a kitchen bench. Look, humans are visual and motivated by attractiveness and allure. But we have grown and become more socially aware which further makes the phrase silly.
Post #MeToo, how have conversations in the boardroom changed regarding representation of women’s sexuality in advertising and media?
I’m not sure that deep down attitudes have changed despite the more inclusive campaign discussions. Predominant conversations would factor around heterosexual markets therefore focusing on the adoration of the female form and attraction, ignoring an LQBTQI lens. Given the number of gay male board members we should hope there’s a greater level of inclusion and relevant portrayal of customers and markets by decision makers.
The Victoria’s Secret rebrand (including the cancellation of their annual fashion show) is a great example of a brand making a 360 pivot towards a less ‘sexy’, more ‘inclusive’ visual identity. Plenty of women, however, revolted against the new branding and actively voiced their preference for the traditional VS brand, and fashion show. Why do you think that is?
Apart from the advertising and runway shows, the company had a very bad history of bullying and female denigration. Was their rebrand partly fueled by risk mitigation?
It was terrific they broadened the definition of women’s bodies and lifestyles including women of colour, size 14 and women of influence in their campaigns. Their Mothers Day and pregnancy campaign this year was great. I see no issue with the previous style of ‘fantasy show’. It is theatre and not demeaning to women in my opinion. But the issue for VS was more a holistic representation of sexuality of all women, not just the tiny size 8’s. My sense is that women loved the shows and sexual aspiration campaigns so feel it’s gone from glamorous to boring perhaps hence the revolt..
Today, brands try to sell ‘sexual empowerment’ and inclusivity instead of traditional sexualised marketing. Do you think this is authentic, or just pandering to consumers’ moral standards post #MeToo?
We are all sexual beings but marketing should be aligned to the product and outcome. The chorus of outrage and political correctness is often far louder than warranted. However, there is a definitive line between relevance and provocative across to misogynistic, irrelevant and bloody offensive.
Love Honey’s campaign ‘Love How you Love’ was on point. Having bikini clad women with big boobs all over a truck commercial is not. Women buy cosmetics to feel and look attractive and attract attention. But sexualising as opposed to being sexy and playful needs a female lens to temper.
But I loathe commercials that depict women as dumb bimbos, sexualised with submissive coquettishness. Paris Hilton in the Uber /Irwin campaigns do not help the cause at all. Then you have the Ultra Tune commercial with equally brainless characterisations of men and women by Warwick Capper and Pamela Anderson. Unsure whether that is just fun and silly or sexualised idiocy.
What could be the consequence of a brand still selling the traditional version of ‘sex’? Could they find themselves ‘cancelled’, in 2022?
Often, provocative and slightly naughty campaigns will work if they are relevant and product relevant. Women love to feel sexy and products that give self acceptance of that part of humanity can work well… in moderation. But sexy and charm is not always denigrating and objectifying women and men. And the combination of genders cannot be ignored in characterisations.. Again I think we need to be aware of the mis-use of the phrase ‘sex’ and embrace sexiness in all its forms. Sexiness is also the quality of being exciting or appealing. And brands want that, just not the genitals per se.
Anita Siek, founder and CEO at Wordfetti
Anita Siek, founder and CEO of Wordfetti
The phrase ‘sex sells’ is so ubiquitous and widespread – everyone’s heard it at least once in their life. But what does it even mean? What does it truly mean to ‘sell sex’?
The way I see it, there’s two sides to “selling sex”.
One side taps into grabbing our attention through controversy and taboo. Because sex, although we all think it, isn’t exactly something that’s often talked about over the dinner table. (Well, I know for me at least, growing up this certainly wasn’t a common topic that was talked about in my household.)
On the other, it is that one thing that taps into not only our basic primal instincts but also all the different layers of human needs. I’m talking about basic psychological needs of food, water, sleep, survival, and sex (or pro-creation), but also, safety, love and belonging, esteem, and overall human pleasure.
So when we combine the two, it becomes a powerful (and potentially toxic, if used inappropriately) concoction in advertising because on one side of the coin, it’s a taboo topic to grab attention and on the other, it’s part of human nature. To “sell sex” therefore is to ultimately leverage and tap into the heart of the human psyche.
Post #MeToo, how have conversations in the boardroom changed regarding representation of women’s sexuality in advertising and media?
Our worldview is shaped through what we see on TV, media, movies, and our social and cultural environment. But before the #MeToo movement, a lot of messaging did objectify women and there were never really different perspectives or angles shared (or at least, listened to).
The detrimental impact of “objectifying” women would have no doubt crossed minds, but there was never really a “safe” space to talk about it and as such, many may have turned a blind eye because this “sell sex” method did work. The one constant in marketing and advertising though, are humans. And over the last decade the digital landscape and our environment have changed drastically. Following the #MeToo movement? People began to see (celebrate, and listen to) different perspectives from women. And as much, conversations shifted in boardrooms from “what can we say and do to get people’s attention?” to “what role do we play and what impact can we create?”
Brands have become more mindful of their contribution, in particular, how their content, marketing, language and word choices can further harm gender identities, cultural ideologies, and the worldview for our future generations. This isn’t just restricted to women, it’s to men too, and those who are non-binary. A great example of this is how Carls Jr backflipped on their original brand strategy of “burgers and bikinis” with Paris Hilton vs their refined food-centric messaging around “quality burgers” with Celeste Barber campaign.
Today, brands try to sell ‘sexual empowerment’ and inclusivity instead of traditional sexualised marketing. Do you think this is authentic, or just pandering to consumers’ moral standards post #MeToo?
I’ll say this: if you want to be trusted, be honest.
Consumers don’t want surface level, nor do they want brands to be like sheep and follow the masses just cause it’s the cool thing to do. Consumers today expect brands to use their platform for good, to have a voice, and be real. Because now a days, purchases aren’t just for the product or service, we (including you and I) buy what we believe and stand for. So, if you’re a brand that is selling “sexual empowerment”, “inclusivity” or any other “trending” or “flavour of the year” topic with the sole purpose to pander to consumer’s moral standards without actually having this echo and bleed into how you make decisions, how you show up, how you market and more importantly who you have in the boardroom? Then that is when I’d say it’s inauthentic.
What could be the consequence of a brand still selling the traditional version of ‘sex’? Could they find themselves ‘cancelled’, in 2022?
I’d say if your business is selling sex? Use sex. If you’re not selling sex, then I’d suggest if you do choose to use it, ensure this aligns with your audience and with the brand message you want to convey. Don’t use it just for shock value. It doesn’t work anymore. As brand and organisation leaders, we all have a mega role to play in shaping the culture within our teams internally, but also externally for our future generations.
People don’t want to be treated as an “object” (and this includes men, women, or those who are non-binary). People want “real”. People want “substance”. And people want to be treated like a “human”.
Jac Phillips
Jac Phillips, executive coach and former CMO
The phrase ‘sex sells’ is so ubiquitous and widespread – everyone’s heard it at least once in their life. But what does it even mean? What does it truly mean to ‘sell sex’?
Yes, sex sells. And why shouldn’t it? It’s been sold forever. The world’s oldest profession! And today it’s selling more than ever but the action appears to be online… OnlyFans has more than 50 million registered users and more than 1 million content creators and has paid out more than US$800m to those content creators since launching. The online subscription service founded in 2016 and because it doesn’t have a lot of restrictions and offers exclusive content which an audience pays a premium price for, it has become the go to place for content creators to post adult material, and so this is what the site has become known for.
In 2019, there were 42 billion visits to Pornhub. Since early March, traffic has increased by 13.7 per cent.
Taking it literally, selling sex means to sell a sexual act for money or some other currency of value.
In the world of marketing however it tends to take on a different meaning – not the actual act itself but sexual themes and imagery have been used to sell products since the late 1800s when some of the earliest sexual ads were created by tobacco companies in which they popped drawings of naked or partially clothed women, in the form of trading cards, inside cigarette boxes.
Post #MeToo, how have conversations in the boardroom changed regarding representation of women’s sexuality in advertising and media?
The boardrooms I sit in and the conversations I am having with the C-Suite, entrepreneurs, founders, agency leaders and creatives is different today.
Back when I was in advertising Madonna was gyrating on a chair to “Like A Virgin” and we were pouring over her soft-pornography coffee table book “Sex” like there was no tomorrow! Was it right? No probably not, but it appeared to be accepted in the 90’s… grab your coffee and check out Madonna simulating a sexual act with a blindfold, but then again socks worn with high heels was also accepted in the 90’s so maybe that says more about that era!
“Sex” sold over 150,000 copies on its first day in the US, and topped the New York Times Best Seller list for three weeks. In matters of days it went on to sell more than 1.5 million copies worldwide and remains the best and fastest-selling coffee table book. Academics deemed it a defining phase in Madonna’s career and Sex was noted for its social and cultural impact and considered a bold post-feminist work.
There is a general ‘what’s appropriate and what’s not’ premise today which prevails when it comes to gender-based advertising depicting sexual themes and imagery, and I think this is because of a few things:
More women in positions of power, whether that be on boards, as founders, in the C-Suite or in senior government positions of authority so they are influencing our advertising and marketing messages more today.
More men aware of sex being used in advertising as being offensive, in bad taste and out of place in society.
A better understanding of equality and greater expectations from our major brands when it comes to inclusivity and not wanting to disenfranchise customers. At the end of the day, a sale is a sale is a sale and there is limited customers so building brand affinity with more people (not less) is key to market growth.
The Victoria’s Secret rebrand (including the cancellation of their annual fashion show) is a great example of a brand making a 360 pivot towards a less ‘sexy’, more ‘inclusive’ visual identity. Plenty of women, however, revolted against the new branding and actively voiced their preference for the traditional VS brand, and fashion show. Why do you think that is?
Victoria Secret sells lingerie. People buy lingerie for practical purposes but also to “feel sexy” and there’s nothing wrong with that, so I am unsure as to how VS are meant to create marketing that is unsexy or less sexy… what’s good is they have ditched the “Angels” and are now using plus size, ethnic models as well as transgender people who more accurately represent our society, this is awesome and relevant (it is also smart if you want market share… attract the previously underserved customers) and who says this isn’t sexy?
From the research I have done, VS have managed their rebrand well in that it now has broader appeal and the sales performance is testimony to this. The key change here was an entirely new board of seven directors at VS of which six are women.
Today, brands try to sell ‘sexual empowerment’ and inclusivity instead of traditional sexualised marketing. Do you think this is authentic, or just pandering to consumers’ moral standards post #MeToo?
Depends on the brand. I think the issue with using sex or gender based advertising isn’t that we’re using sex to sell something, but the messaging is often created by men, so it’s not actually seen from a female perspective. Sadly our creative industry in Australia is still dominated by white men, yet the primary target for nearly everything sold today is women. We need to make sure we are appealing to women. By women, for women.
Cindy Gallop, founder of Make Love Not Porn, which she describes as sex education through demonstration, real world sex, truthful, says companies and agencies will make more money when women are in charge of selling to women. “There’s a huge amount of money to be made out of taking women seriously,” she says.
Brands I think doing the empowerment piece well here in Australia are some of our banks, especially Bank Australia and ME Bank, also Aware Super and Mecca Beauty. A new brand called Ultra Violette (an Australian made sunscreen) has caught my attention on Instagram – I love how they use positivity and confidence targeting their audience in every message they send out.
What could be the consequence of a brand still selling the traditional version of ‘sex’? Could they find themselves ‘cancelled’, in 2022?
If they aren’t selling sex, then there is no reason to use ‘sex’ to sell. Isn’t it that simple?
Interestingly Australian legislation does not regulate sexist advertising (unlike countries such as Britain, Norway & France) yet we seem to be moving towards better behaviour when it comes to what gets through…
Using beautiful people (which usually means ‘young’) will always capture attention. There’s nothing wrong with using beauty and youth and admiring it. Where I would turn against a brand is when it clearly uses gender or sex when it isn’t appropriate or necessary. This is lazy creativity and not only is it offensive, it lacks the sophistication and progress we deserve as a society.
Emma Macey, Client Lead at Atomic 212
Emma Macey, Client Lead at Atomic 212
The phrase ‘sex sells’ is so ubiquitous and widespread – everyone’s heard it at least once in their life. But what does it even mean? What does it truly mean to ‘sell sex’?
‘Selling sex’ is kind of a shortcut that gets used by some marketers – rather than trying to truly understand the consumer enough to identify and articulate a solution or benefit for a product or service, instead they sexualise the message to demand attention in the hope it drives sales.
Post #MeToo, how have conversations in the boardroom changed regarding representation of women’s sexuality in advertising and media?
Having such rich data and insights at our fingertips, we now know who our customer is and what they’re really looking for. This allows our conversations to move away from ‘how do we get people’s attention’ to ‘how does our product solve a customer pain point or need’. Of course, we will always need to draw their attention but this can come to life in such nuanced ways. An example I love is Jimmy Rees and how he does this comedically, for example with Thermomix and shows the audience how it can be used to create delicious healthy meals that save time and creates less mess – common problems for time poor parents! Historically, we may have seen a beautiful woman showcasing the machine in a sensual way that isn’t relevant to the product and making other women feel ‘less than’.
The Victoria’s Secret rebrand (including the cancellation of their annual fashion show) is a great example of a brand making a 360 pivot towards a less ‘sexy’, more ‘inclusive’ visual identity. Plenty of women, however, revolted against the new branding and actively voiced their preference for the traditional VS brand, and fashion show. Why do you think that is?
I would argue there is a middle ground to this. Why do people watch the Kardashians? Because it’s both aspirational and entertaining, similarly to the traditional VS show. Yes there are beautiful and unrealistic examples of women in sexy lingerie however its the entertainment aspect of the show that I will certainly miss. A-list celebs sitting in the front row and performing, the ‘sneak peek’ backstage and the storylines weaved in on how everyone prepares for the show all contributed to the glamour and ratings it delivered. If they brought back these elements but had a more inclusive approach to the models walking down the runway I think it could be something everyone would get around. The message they are delivering by cancelling the show altogether is that if they need to have different bodies that don’t fit the traditional VS mould then there is no point in having the show at all, which is potentially worse.
Today, brands try to sell ‘sexual empowerment’ and inclusivity instead of traditional sexualised marketing. Do you think this is authentic, or just pandering to consumers’ moral standards post #MeToo?
I see this as quite varied depending on the brand. Dove has always led this space in the most authentic and promising way but other brands such as Honey Birdette are packaging it up quite differently, using empowerment as a way to further sexualise their imagery without getting slammed for selling sex; which is essentially what they are doing.
What could be the consequence of a brand still selling the traditional version of ‘sex’? Could they find themselves ‘cancelled’, in 2022?
I think it really depends on the brand and what they choose to show. For example, I think if you’re a brand like Calvin Klein who is known for a particular type of ad, there is still an appetite for this. But it will be important to ensure the people they use are diverse and represent ‘real’ people and bodies for it to be accepted. If you’re an FMCG brand showing a traditionally beautiful and sexualised lady in the kitchen then it won’t go down well. Context is important here. It is also important for marketers to understand what is going on culturally to make decisions on what is smart and relevant vs what could be seen as tone deaf or insensitive. Speaking to audiences regularly helps with this.
Have your say