KISS rebreather advert: your views

[MikeFerrara]

Well brotha this place is not cheap to run. At $3.95 for a monthly supporting member fee - with very few people opting to support - I think we would be SOL in no time w/o advertisers.

Of course, I realize that it takes money to provide scubaboard.

Chip, this is the first thread I have noticed about this in a while. Further it has a lot of potential implications - will SB continue to accept ads like this? Will they let them be even more risque? Remember this is a place that once had several mods freaking over someone having a cup in their profile pic that had the word SH** on it. Personally, I think a lot of the fuss is that people do not want to see SB go this way with their advertising. Perhaps they see SB as more of a sanctuary from this type of advertising - it does go in line with the high standards SB is known for. Furthermore, many people allow their children here and may not want them exposed to this :ne_nau: or what SB may allow in the future. Some do have daughters, ya know. Lastly, I don't think anyone here is so ignorant not realize that we have expounded on the Kiss name by continually discussing it but perhaps the end result is more important to some.

I think Pete has to decide what kind of image he wants scubaboard to have. I also think there's alot more to it than the amount of skin shown in the ads.

 

[Blox]

Further it has a lot of potential implications - will SB continue to accept ads like this? Will they let them be even more risque?

<snip>

Furthermore, many people allow their children here and may not want them exposed to this :ne_nau: or what SB may allow in the future. Some do have daughters, ya know.

"More risque"??? This ad is nowhere near risque (unless, maybe, the viewer has been brought up in certain countries in the Middle East).

Get real - it's a woman in a bikini. If you don't want your daughters to see women in bikinis, you don't only want to keep them off the board, but you also want to make sure that you keep them far away from beaches in any kind of warm climate. And make sure that they don't watch TV. And ensure, they don't read magazines or newspapers. Or leave the house in the first place.

Oh... btw - I've got two daughters of my own.

 

[Missdirected]

"More risque"??? This ad is nowhere near risque (unless, maybe, the viewer has been brought up in certain countries in the Middle East).

Get real - it's a woman in a bikini. If you don't want your daughters to see women in bikinis, you don't only want to keep them off the board, but you also want to make sure that you keep them far away from beaches in any kind of warm climate. And make sure that they don't watch TV. And ensure, they don't read magazines or newspapers. Or leave the house in the first place.

Oh... btw - I've got two daughters of my own.

I was offering reasons why some may feel the way that they do. I don't think it is the bikini that is upsetting so many. Rather it is the in your face boobs and kiss across her bottom. Many find it demeaning to women - yet it is a constant in ad sales because it works and because it works it is everywhere. This ad is miniscule in the big picture. But it does beg the question as to whether SB will allow it to go even further. Personally, I think that is why so many are irritated they simply don't like the T&A here on this board. If the add offered more then it would be different but it doesn't.

Me, I have two boys 17 & 19 and a sister who is 15. I care not to see my son's gf's or my sister laid out over say... a corvette in their t-backs or in a re-breather showing essentially nothing of the system (boobs are not part of the system - contrary to popular belief they are not PFD's :wink1: . If you would like to see your daughters doing such then that is your prerogative.

Let me ask you this, why could they have not shown off her intelligence? Personally, I think they could have "sold" a lot more women by doing such and she could still be in her bikini.

 

[rhadamantus]

amen. that is why i cannot seem to pick a letter among the poll choices... nothing in there can quite put this perspective in one phrase.

Woah. I did not say sex didn't sell. It does. Hence why any Joe can create an ad. I've been in advertising most of my life - trust me I know what sells. Fact is she is modeling in that ad. Fact is you barely notice she is wearing a re-breather. Nothing in that ad tells us she is intelligent. The only thing you know about her is she has some nice *&@* - which I might add are placed right in your face. Just like at the grocery store - the prime spot to place a product is at eye level - and people pay extra to have that spot on the shelf.

Now I did say that ad could have been done much better even with her in the same outfit.

Notice with the girl her boobs are "framed" by the gear and she has big red lips smacked across her bum. The gear on the front side is mostly out of the picture - its all one blue bathing suit top . With the man you see more of the gear and his body is not in your face. His backside shot does not belittle men as there is no set of big red lips on him.

I was offering reasons why some may feel the way that they do. I don't think it is the bikini that is upsetting so many. Rather it is the in your face boobs and kiss across her bottom. Many find it demeaning to women - yet it is a constant in ad sales because it works and because it works it is everywhere. This ad is miniscule in the big picture. But it does beg the question as to whether SB will allow it to go even further. Personally, I think that is why so many are irritated they simply don't like her on this board.

 

[Blox]

I was offering reasons why some may feel the way that they do. I don't think it is the bikini that is upsetting so many. Rather it is the in your face boobs and kiss across her bottom. Many find it demeaning to women - yet it is a constant in ad sales because it works and because it works it is everywhere. This ad is miniscule in the big picture. But it does beg the question as to whether SB will allow it to go even further.

"Even further" does (at least) imply, that you think it has been taken too far already. You quite clearly classify the display of the woman as "risque", which I personally think is a total overreaction.

If the add offered more then it would be different but it doesn't.

Well, it's an ad - it's not supposed to do anything more, but to get your attention, create interest, and make you want to find out more about the product, so that a sales opportunity is created for the manufacturer.

Me, I have two boys 17 & 19 and a sister who is 15. I care not to see my son's gf's or my sister laid out over say... a corvette in their t-backs

I think you are exaggerating. It's not quite the same whether an ad displays a woman in sexy apparel draped across the hood of a corvette, possibly even in a sexually inspired pose, or whether an ad displays a woman in apparel that is typical (and where I live, with water temp being around 30 degree C throughout the year, and in similar places) bikinis CAN be considered typical dive apparel), who apparently has just finished a dive on a rebreather and had fun (as indicated by the look on her face). The first is a composition, that is completely unnatural and created obviously and entirely with the "sex sells" idea in mind, and only wants to appeal to primal/primitive instincts to get the job done, while the latter is natural - it's what you can (or could) see on dive boats and beaches around the world.

If you would like to see your daughters doing such then that is your prerogative.

I wouldn't be very happy, if any of my daughters wanted to pose for the Corvette shot that you described, but I would have no problem at all, if they intended to model for the next KISS ad, if it was like the one in question.

Let me ask you this, why could they have not shown off her intelligence? Personally, I think they could have "sold" a lot more women by doing such and she could still be in her bikini.

How do you display intelligence of the "model" in an ad? Publish diplomas with the ad? IQ test results? How?
And, even if you could: what's that supposed to achieve, if the message you wanted the viewers to get is "KISS rebreathers are fun for recreational divers too"? Does having fun require an IQ of at least 140? Or 120?

With all due respect: From my point of view, it appears that what you're saying implies that you think the woman looks dumb (which I just don't agree with, because I don't have the habit of drawing conclusions on someone's intelligence based on her/his looks), and, while I am fairly convinced that that is unintentional, to me that is a demeaning attitude on your part - not to women as such, but at least towards the diver who has modeled for the ad.

 

[rhadamantus]

with all due respect to your comprehension, MissD is attacking the approach over which the AD was being advertised, not the model or whatever we call her in this case.

With all due respect: From my point of view, it appears that what you're saying implies that you think the woman looks dumb (which I just don't agree with, because I don't have the habit of drawing conclusions on someone's intelligence based on her/his looks), and, while I am fairly convinced that that is unintentional, to me that is a demeaning attitude on your part - not to women as such, but at least towards the diver who has modeled for the ad.

 

[Kim]

"Even further" does (at least) imply, that you think it has been taken too far already.

I read it slightly differently. Given how long MissD has been an active member here she's probably wondering if certain things have become acceptable that weren't in the past. Such images, in fact almost ANY sort of sexual innuendo, were never tolerated on SB....until now. This is new, and raises questions seemingly in many peoples minds.
(Of course....this is MY interpretation of MissD's posts which of course may or may not be what she really meant!)

Now - YOU may think that the ad in question is free of any innuendo and entirely innocent in concept and intent. I think it's safe to say that you'd be in a very small minority though. I honestly believe that most people seeing any ad like that, whether they feel actually offended or not, would recognise the sexual element and appeal....and what it's supposed to do.

Already mentioned is the first and second pictures - the "eyes front" nature of the first (actually...also in the 4th), the logo placement of the second. I think also think that the last frame is quite telling. We've seen the girl, and we've seen the boy - then the kiss between them is captioned "Bringing excitement back into diving". You never heard of subliminal messaging?

It doesn't make the ad bad - after all it's a standard approach and technique (albeit rather old). We've just never had it on SB before, so it seems reasonable to enquire what the "New Order" of acceptability actually is, as something appears to have shifted.

But yes - the ad has worked well, and drawn a lot of attention and views. I think ANY thread centered on a pretty ladies chest probably would. Or weren't we supposed to notice that?

As for "beaches around the world". Yes - you see MANY things on them, including topless and total nudity in some places (particularly Europe). It doesn't at all mean that any of it was acceptable on SB. The TOS here quite clearly prohibits "anything of a sexual nature ". You'd have to be blind or dead not to see the contradiction inherent in this ad!

 

[MikeFerrara]

I showed the ad to my wife. She had never seen it before and I wanted her first impressions of it. I did make the mistake of telling her that it was a rebreather ad before she saw it.

Still, the first thing she pointed out is that you can't even see the rebreather in the picture of the frontal view of the girl.

The only picture that seems to highlight the rebreather at all is the one with the "KISS" on her butt but you sort of have to know that there is a "KISS" rebreather for that to mean anything.

This isn't the only ad like that on the board. A lot of these ads on the board are big on color and animation but you have to look pretty hard to see what they are selling. I noticed one yesterday that was a bunch of large UW sceens scrolling by with a name in smallish print at the top that was there only intermittantly. I don't remember the name and I don't know who they are or what they sell. What I do know is that it takes up a fair portion of the screen for a bunch of animation to tell me nothing.

I've noticed other adds that are up by the menue bar where on some pages, I can't use the menue. For example, if I pull down the search window it opens up behind the ad and I can't use it. I have to go to a different page before I can use the search function. Again, I have no idea who the ad was for or what they sell. I was only trying to see the search window.

As I see it, it's just a bunch of large pictures and animation eating up space, processing power slowing down the board and interfering with functionality. My computer is a few years old and I have a modem coneection but of the sites that I use regularly scubaboard is about the slowest and I think all the graphics has to be part of the reason.

I'm no advertising pro but I tend to think that the Google-Ad people just aren't very good at advertising. It really just looks like a lot of clutter to me.

I like scubaboard and I don't want Pete to go broke. My comments are intended to be constructive.

Regarding the "skin" in the ad. Several people seemed a little upset by the use of the term "risque". To be sure, there are people here from all over the world, of all ages and with different backgrounds. I've lived all my life in the midwest US, I'm 48, married with two grown children (a boy and a girl). My own opinion is that many women ought to wear more clothes. I wouldn't exactly say I'm offended but I don't think these girls hanging out all over the place is the least bit attractive or classy. Just kind of trashy.

Blox said

Get real - it's a woman in a bikini. If you don't want your daughters to see women in bikinis, you don't only want to keep them off the board, but you also want to make sure that you keep them far away from beaches in any kind of warm climate. And make sure that they don't watch TV. And ensure, they don't read magazines or newspapers. Or leave the house in the first place.

I don't know how many children you've raised but I'll tell you. Limiting the junk your children are exposed to and trying to teach them how to dress is a full time job. We don't watch TV here. I find all the "grow a bigger penis" commercials especially distastful. We don't hang out at public beaches and we do/don't do lots of other things to avoid having to look at all the junk that we don't want to see. Limiting exposure to the constant bombardment is not easy. There just isn't much "G" rated content in the media anymore.

So yes, scubaboard needs to give some thought to the image they want to project. Whether anyone likes it or not, for every person who thinks a picture of a girl in a bikini on the screen is no big deal, there is some old fart like me who thinks it's kind of low class in that context. What scubaboard has to decide is whether or not they care. There may come the day when I turn off scubaboard like I did the TV. I hope not but it could happen.

 

[Blox]

Hi Kim,

As for "beaches around the world". Yes - you see MANY things on them, including topless and total nudity in some places (particularly Europe). It doesn't at all mean that any of it was acceptable on SB. The TOS here quite clearly prohibits "anything of a sexual nature ". You'd have to be blind or dead not to see the contradiction inherent in this ad!

Last time I checked, I was neither dead nor blind

Seriously though:

I do understand what you are saying, however, we seem to be in disagreement over what is "of a sexual nature".

The ad in question, as it is, IMHO isn't "anything of a sexual nature".

If it was, the logical consequence would be to ban anything showing women in bikinis from this board (regardless of cup size of the depicted woman -- this IS an equal opportunity board, isn't it? ) Might as well ban pictures of people in swim wear altogether, just to make sure that people offended by speedos, by bathing suits or shorts, aren't upset either. And while we're at it, there'd also be a couple of really questionable avatars, that need urgent review

I'm exaggerating, ofcourse, but:
I do understand that people may be concerned about "where the limit is". I appreciate and respect that, because: So do I.
However, I am not only concerned about one direction, but BOTH -- too liberal (which seems to bother most) as well as too restrictive (which I find equally important). Kicking/banning the ad in question, would be, IMHO, way too restrictive, because in my opinion it does not even get anywhere near a breach of the TOS.

If the lady had been topless or nude - different question, and I would have agreed that it is appropriate. If she would have been shot in a different pose - different question, and I may have agreed that it's inappropriate.

Ultimately it's the owners of the board, who'll have to decide. Their playground - their rules.

Peace and safe diving

 

[Kim]

Blox - unfortunately I can't realistically address your post as I would almost certainly be accused of betraying back-room confidences from the time I was a moderator, and thus involved in discussions as to what exactly is "of a sexual nature". I even had a post pulled yesterday which was nothing but common knowledge, but which I was accused of betraying confidences with. Absolutely not true - I can easily cite examples from outside of the period I had any kind of privileged access to these type of discussions - but very telling as to the real sensitivity of this topic.

I'd love to go deeper into this, as I also believe that it's stuff like this that will dictate the future of SB in the long run. Still....I don't think that anyone needs to have been part of any privileged conversations/discussions to see the contradictions.

FWIW, I also just showed the ad to my wife (without telling her what it was about). She saw the chest (mostly), didn't think the guys face was very attractive, and thought (when pushed) it was about "breathers". She didn't really have a clue what a "breather" was, except it was something to do with a tank.

This tells me that unless you already know something about the topic, you probably won't learn a lot new.