The High Cost That Sex Sells For:
The Dangers Behind Mainstream Fashion Advertising in America

A teenage girl walks with her mother through the checkout line of a grocery store. She picks up the latest issue of Vogue magazine off a rack and flips through the pages of nearly nude, stick-thin bodies and airbrushed skin. She sees a particular ad for Ralph Lauren Romance fragrance and although she never takes a moment to flip back the scented piece of paper to smell the fragrance for herself, she trusts that the male and female models embracing each other lustfully on the glossy paper tell a story that she would love to experience herself. The next day while browsing through a local shopping mall, the young girl pays $69.50 for the perfume. She walks out with a feeling of exhilaration that unbeknownst to her will prove to be all too fleeting.

In 2004, more than $250 billion was spent on domestic advertising in America.
(Reichert 179). A huge percentage of that went to magazine ads, which offer a means for companies to cement the brand images of their products into the minds of consumers (179). Most people may not comprehend the omnipresence of advertisements; they are fully conditioned to be constantly surrounded by them. However, the real cost that millions of women pay every day does not come from their bank accounts.

The average American is exposed to 500 commercial messages each day (185). And while each of these messages individually may not always be prove to be as powerful as previously suggested, the totality of these ads is certainly a force to be reckoned with, especially in the realm of fashion magazines. Sapolsky asserts, “We love our media sex, and we hate it too” (1). But how can this be possible?

It is first important to understand why sexually themed fashion advertisements are so influential. Scholars have explored several explanations of this situation. One argument made by Tom Reichert, a professor in the Department of Advertising and Public Relations at the University of Georgia, is that due to the purposeful exclusion of sex from typical religious, political, and educational dialogue, mass media in general has naturally evolved into an outlet for sexual content (2). Of course, while every so often there are sex scandals that appear in the political sphere, typically the traditional content of entertainment and the promotional tools used to market various products in mainstream America are where the majority of sexuality is conveyed.
Beyond this, sexual appeals are used in advertising because that is what attracts consumers (3). It seems such a basic concept, because it is a basic concept. Men turn their heads and stare at an attractive woman passing by for the same reason that they pause at a sexy ad while flipping through a magazine. Ultimately, the laws of nature are at play at the core of profitable fashion marketing.

Simultaneously, it is crucial for companies to develop strong brand names with distinct identities. Because consumers are so drawn to sexy ads, this is what companies continue to ingrain into their image, with “the deliberate use of visuals, text, and message strategies” that tell consumers “who are intended users of the brand, how the brand should be used, and in what situations it should be used” (181). Yet, while companies strive to dictate to consumers precisely how to respond to a particular product, consumers likewise can often inadvertently seize control of the advertiser.

Reichert explores a key example of the transitions that fashion labels often undergo in order to keep up with the sexy imagery that exists throughout advertising. He examines one of the Top 100 Global Brands, Ralph Lauren/Polo, and their “re-branding” within the past few years from an image of prim, proper, “stuffy, stiff-shirt” polo-playing country-clubbers to an image of “sexy urbanites” with untucked shirts and mussed-up hair. Reichert speculates several different reasons for this company’s choice to sexualize their overall image. For one, clearly, the overall fashion market was changing, and the appeal of the “Y Generation” became crucial to grasp. This group of buyers has the ability to “hurt a boomer brand simply by giving it the cold shoulder”, as well as the size and power to launch rival companies, making it obvious why their interests are of paramount importance to Polo. Trends seem to point to the fact that youths now a days are less interested in “country club exclusivity” and more interested in “urban hip styles” (195). Advertisers are picking up on this and are adjusting accordingly.

In addition, Polo likely felt the heat from competing companies with sexier ad imagery, such as Calvin Klein, Levi’s, Guess, and Abercrombie & Fitch (194). Why would Polo want to be identified as the conservative brand on the market if “what’s sexy” was what was making the most money? Stockholders in Polo also demanded consistent revenues from the company, which my have been one of the final factors that pushed Polo over the edge into the sexual abyss of fashion advertising.
And how effective was this evolution? Considering that Polo’s global brand value has increased by 5% in 2004 alone, it is clear that their adaptation from classic sophistication to raw sensuality has been a profitable marketing decision for the company indeed (196).

Yet, while sultry magazine ads have proven extremely helpful for boosting the fashion industry’s bottom line, what price do the consumers who are subjected to these ads on a daily basis pay? In order to fully understand the dangers behind fashion magazine ads, one might examine advertisements in Vogue, W, or Elle, all of which, according to Debra Merskin, a professor in the School of Journalism at the University of Oregon, contain ads that “weaken women’s power by presenting them not only as objects of the male gaze, but also as objects of a pornographic gaze” (199). This leads to female identity coming to be described almost entirely in terms of female sexuality (203). Erving Goffman, a renowned author who focuses on social theory, explains several ways in which women are depicted in demeaning positions in fashion ads. He points out how they are often shot in recumbent positions, on the dirty floor, “the place to keep dogs” (Goffman 41). He also stresses the appearance of “expression[s] of integration, submissiveness, and appeasement” in the posing of fashion models, who often point their heads downward and place their hands and fingers around their faces in childlike and playful ways (46).

Although it must be stressed that the average female consumer does not consciously view these ads and think, “This woman is lying on the floor like a dog, so I too should take on a subservient role in society.” Quite the contrary, the social messages within these advertisements silently perpetuate certain gender conventions by converting the usual “male gaze” into a “mirrored gaze” (Reichert 203). Women see fashion advertisements and subconsciously receive the message that they too can be as accomplished as the men that find these women attractive, if only they can achieve that same sexual allure of the model in the ad. Women are not drawn to sexy ads because of a sexual desire for the female model, they are attracted to the possibilities that the product being advertised offers them in their pursuit for success in life. John Berger, a prominent art critic and author who concentrates on the social implications of various art forms, would describe this by saying that the woman “turn[s] herself into an objectmost particularly an object of vision: a sight” (Berger 47). Therefore, the female consumer, upon viewing a fashion magazine advertisements, thinks, “This model is seductive and beautiful, or else she would not be in this ad. If I can become this sexy to the men around me, I too can earn as much money as they do, and the first step must be to purchase this product being advertised.” Ipso facto, sex has successfully sold a product to the unknowing female consumer, who is now no further toward her own independence and financial achievement in the world. In fact, she is quite likely much poorer as a result of her commercial endeavors to attain a physical attractiveness that exists only in the fantasy world of advertising.

However, the cultivation of submissiveness and hierarchy, and the overall objectification of the female body are not the only negative effects of fashion advertising. In fact, these effects converge to create a new condition altogether: violence (Jensen 65). Examples of companies whose ads typically depict violent scenes include Dolce & Gabbana, which “favors women with whips”, and Guess ads that show women being surrounded by men and pinned up against a tree (Reichert 210). Merskin goes on to describe various high fashion advertisements that showcase lewd and often almost offensive scenes: “A woman wearing a tight, black, leather jacket and tight black leather underwear poses in a Bottega Veneta ad, leaning against a sink in a restroom, while a naked man looks on” (210). Clearly, while these ads don’t feature the text, “If you are a woman, go out and buy tight leather clothing and stand in a restroom, and if you are a man, go to the nearest restroom and take off all your clothing.” However, ads such as this demean both men and women in general, depredate the act of sex, and encourage violence against the opposite sex.

Recently, more and more women have begun to challenge the overly sexual ads of fashion magazines. Many reporters now claim that the female response to sexy ads is changing. Aaron Hoover, a Florida reporter, claims, “For female magazine readers, sex doesn’t sell so much as it - bores” (Hoover). However, the current social climate seems to indicate that sex is selling. If women wish to turn down the sexual barometer in America, they must go about it in an entirely different way. It is apparent that not enough women have chosen to exercise their power. There are more women investing hard-earned pay into products the fashion magazines are advertising than women disgusted by the marketing techniques that companies are using to lure them in. It is the responsibility of female consumers to shield themselves from “visual deceptions” and become “visually literate” on their own (Messaris 274).

William Leiss, a scientist at the University of Ottawa, writes that advertising is more than just a business expenditure used to sell products. He argues that ads “unify the discourse through and about objects, which bonds together images of persons, products, and well-being” (Alperstein 5). If this is true, what can be said for the future well-being of the girl walking through the checkout line, browsing through the latest issue of Vogue?

Works Cited

Alperstein, Neil M. Advertising in Everyday Life. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc., 2003.

Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. London: British Broadcasting Corporation, 1972.
Goffman, Erving. Gender Advertisements. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976.

Hoover, Aaron. “When The Magazine Girl Begs ‘Come Hither,’ The (Female) Reader Yawns”. Ascribe Newswire. 5 Sept. 2006.

Jensen, R., & Dines, G. Pornography: The Production and Consumption of Inequality. New York: Taylor and Francis, Inc., 1997.

Messaris, Paul. Visual Persuasion: The Role of Images in Advertising. London: Sage Publications Inc., 1997.

Reichert, Tom, ed. Sex in Consumer Culture. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers, 2006.

Sapolsky, B.S., Tabarlet, J.O., & Kaye, B.K. Sexual behavior and references in program promotions aired during sweeps and nonsweeps periods. Journal of Promotion Management, 3, 95-106. 1996.