Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Redlg155, Jan 24, 2012.
IMO, "much ado" ...
anybody remember G. Gordon Liddy's calenders? Scantily clad women with guns..
guns and tanks, guns and fighter planes, guns and motorcycles, guns and more guns.
I LOVED those calenders!
Ok, fine dad, I mean SAM1911...
Seriously though.... here's a question for the OP (and whoever else wants to opine):
Are you equally as concerned by scantily clad women in beer ads? How about sports car ads? Or any other of a plethora of ads for non-gun products?
If you aren't as equally concerned about those products, then why single out the gun ads? Do we feel that guns must be treated differently than any other product/items and why?
I really hope you have better situational awareness if/when you carry. I see it more like 2/1 in favor, or don't care from the people that bothered to reply. I see this as being about as important as caliber wars. Everybody gets to make their own decisions.
My gut reaction is that if you have to use a sexy woman to sell X the purpose is to draw attention to the qualities of the sexy woman and away from the qualities of product X.
I suspect Blue Press does it as satire or parody of the typical advertising meme of "sexy sells".
They don't add anything for me and in fact detract from serious discussions about buying reloading equipment or considerations for self-defense with my wife.
Just a cheap marketing ploy that makes me NOT want whatever is being advertised (from the replies here, most of you who like the advertisements don't even notice what's being advertised anyway ).
I can say the same thing about most non-firearm products being advertised with sex as well.
hey,my age,any thrill is better than no thrill at all,no matter how cheap it is
Hey, I think this is an interesting discussion, but if it fills up with girly pics it won't say open. So, please, keep it reasonable.
The beers I drink don't advertise that way, and I think you'd agree that very few car companies (even very high end cars) use the overt "sex sells" strategy. Yeah, sure you can find dorm-room posters of bikini babes draped over a corvette, but does Chevy actually stoop to that for their ads? I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think so. They don't want the first thing their ad viewers to think to be "cheesy and low-rate."
But I'm also not "concerned," either way, really, when it comes to cars or beer. But, look, if you're talking about an ad for Bud Lite or Coors Light, who cares? We all KNOW who that cheap pee-water is aimed at. It's a lowest-common-denominator product. There is no quality there, no "responsible citizen" aspect.
So from that standpoint, yes I'd prefer that guns were treated a little differently from any lowest-rung consumer product. We are engaged in a broad public-relations struggle regarding firearms and RKBA that beer and cars really don't face.
And...the irony is that "chicks" in bikinis are actually at least in some minor way relevant to the sort of mindless "fun" most of those commercials are evoking. Sitting on the beach with a girl in a bikini drinking a Bud Lite? Sure. Makes sense. It fits. Same girl in a bikini holding an AR-15? What the heck? You just lost all context or relevance.
In the Classifieds of Shotgun News, the company " Rguns " has some awful advertisements.
They feature some drug addict looking women strategically covering their naughty bits.
While it might attract the [deleted insulting comments about people who like that type of ad] that read that magazine, it makes them lose my business.
I don't buy new guns, new cars, nor any kind of beer..... so I'm not swayed by ads!
I shot a few images in that direction on Sunday, will post them soon.
About Kahr Arms ads -- one of their models is the former Miss Korea. She's a competent shooter. They failed to emphasize that in the ads.
EAA ads -- complete turn-off. I don't think they realize that "attention" does not equal "positive attention".
One solution is to use the model's personal gun (below) with which she is familiar:
There's a classic saying in advertising: "There's no such thing as bad press.". While not 100% literally true, the basic premise mostly is. Anything that gets people looking at your products is a good thing.
You might also check out the "Streisand Effect". Basically, the bigger stink people tend to make about something, the more popular and distributed it gets.
I am trying to understand why firearms should be held to a higher standard of advertising than those used for other commodities. Frankly, I have not come up with a reason. Therefore, it comes down to personal taste.
You are always free to not buy the product if you find their advertising offensive. However, you will have little success in eliminating the advertising.
No more or less acceptable than the ads I've seen with macho men, men trying to be all SpecOp or what have you. I am not personally offended or even influenced by seeing good looking women holding firearms. It might distract me for a moment as I peruse a magazine, but it certainly isn't going to make me want to purchase the weapon.
As I'm sure many have said, if it generates sales then they're doing something right. Personally I purchase based on reviews and personal experience.
Sex doesn't always sell. Anyone remember Cindy Garrison? She'd go hunting for big game while wearing the tiniest booty shorts I'd ever seen on ESPN. Regardless of how much Cindy skin was visible, the show failed to garner an audience and the network never bought a second season.
BTW, if anyone is wondering wht the magazines will run these types of ads, it's simple economics. the combined rveenues from newstand and subscriptions won't come close to paying for the printing costs of a single month's issue. Advertisers pay massive fees to run those ads. That's how the publication remains in print.
I would be a liar if I said I didn't like them. However, the reality is that more and more women are purchasing and using guns and they really don't like to be viewed as sex objects. In my man-dominated business (auto repair shop), we still have a large number of female clients, so we no longer display pinup calendars, posters, etc., many of which were much racier than these gun advertiesments.
I would rather see a model holding a gun in a bikini than a burqa. The company may be trying to illustrate the sleek lines and elegant curves by comparing it with a similar object with the same qualities.
In most European countries people are accustomed to public nudity -- in ads, in spas, on the beaches -- that to them nudity is no big deal. I lived in Europe for three years, traveling to a couple dozen different countries, and as I recall, European ads use nude or semi-nude models in ads which sell products that people use when they're naked. Makes sense to me.
In the US we cringe at the idea of our poor, impressionable, vulnerable children seeing a split second of a nipple covered by a pasty at halftime, yet we allow and even encourage them to watch blood spurting from bludgeoned and hacked up bodies in video games, on TV, and in movies.
Demographics certainly comes into play. Many mall ninja types whom I've seen posting on the less "high road" websites apparently see their guns as extensions of their -- um, themselves -- so it's a small wonder gun makers have attempted to exploit that by appealing to the libido.
It comes down to this: it's ineffective to rail against such a practice on the Internet.
If one wants to protest the practice, one might simply not patronize the companies that use it.
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Expression. Just like the right to keep and bear arms, essential.
Scantily clad women and Guns is both.
YEP which is more normal, being attracted to the opposite sex or gory violence as entertainment?
The problem here is WHO should decide what is "acceptable".
Some of us think it should be the individual. In other words if you don't like that type of advertising then don't buy the product. Vote with your dollars or better yet write a letter to the company and complain. After all they are in business to make money and if enough people feel the same way you do the marketing department will change their advertising strategies to avoid offending potential customers.
Other people want to use the power of government to force advertisers to conform to what they think is “acceptable”. The problem with this is that what is acceptable depends on who is in power. When it is the Christian right they will attempt to use government to force a G rated society on everyone else (for the children of course).
When the far left comes to power they will use the power of the state to eliminate or strictly regulate private gun ownership as they don’t see gun ownership as acceptable and they don’t want the children exposed to guns. ( Remember a while back when some leftist group tried to get Field and Stream removed from school libraries because it contained articles about guns?)
Acceptable is a subjective term totally open to interpretation depending on who does the interpreting. When you give the government that kind of power it will eventually be used against you when the wrong bunch gets into power.
And an individual who eschews hedonism is within his/her rights. However, at the point where folks start insisting everyone think along those lines, it may be interfering with the rights of others.
The question posed was, "Acceptable or not?". If the meaning is "suitable", then I would agree that the ads are probably a stretch. If the meaning is "allowable", I'd have to say they don't appear to be causing harm.
Like a guy wearing plaid pants. IMO, this attire is far from acceptable, unless you're part of a circus act. But he isn't hurting anyone with his choice of attire. So, if I saw a guy wearing plaid pants, I suppose I'd find something less visually jarring to look at, but I wouldn't think of trying to correct his behavior.
It's the difference between belief and proselytizing. I believe many are fairly tolerant of other belief structures, but find their attempts to convert everyone somewhat wearisome.
As I tell the wife each month, I only carefully peruse my "Blue Press" from Dillion for pictures of the RL equipment and guns.
That was the very fault of the Puritans in America. The attitude of "we don't think this is right, so we will make laws against it"
Celebrating Christmas is wrong, so it is banned.
Playing board games is wrong so it is baned.
Doing anything on Sunday other than attending church is wrong. (hence no Sunday hunting today in the Eastern states).
That's the same mentality the gun grabbers have with guns.
Every law against anything is put into place because someone thinks it's not right.
Shooting sports are male dominated activities. Putting a pretty girl in the ad grabs our attention, nothing more. The additional ad content (assuming there is any) is what builds interest in the product being advertised.
As for beautiful women marketing cars? You bet, just not usually in print. Ever hear the term "booth babe?" It is less common for American cars but many new model rollouts at car shows feature attractive, female models.
To me it's not a big deal; I just may get punched in the arm if my wife thinks I'm looking too much.
Separate names with a comma.