My painstakingly customized and hopefully accurate predictions of the type of designer that each of us would be in the year 2019. It can either serve as a reminder and aspiration to work towards or a self-check after 10 years.

Budding designers from ADM, School Design and Media in NTU, are selected to give their creative suggestions for improving these controversial advertisements. The suggestions are written on transparencies, which can clearly mark out their respective positions and bind together by metal rings so that they are adjustable.

Selection of suggestions used in the construction of the improved advertisements are based on my understanding of the public's level of tolerance through various case studies seen in this blog archive and their obvious effectiveness and frequency.







D&G SUGGESTIONS:

To me the ads are typical D&G and what they lack in creativity they make up in formulaic provocation. Like most of their ads, the figures are seperated by a couple of feet and show no physical connection with each other. Such a placement focuses on the product rather than an expression or reality of life and design. The placement of a man and woman in the center in a provocative pose does not work well with such a composition and leaves the viewer disturbed.

I am a little bit on the fence... i agree the image is a little shocking, not because of the two figures in the middle and their positions, but rather the facial expressions of the men peering on and the dark moody colors.... which make it subcousciously “disturbing”. Make it a classic black and white photo instead. dont think it constitutes banishment, however...its just a strange ad (and i think they could have done better).

This ad definetly represents violence toward woman, and could very well be a portrayal of a gang rape. It is used to grab your attention, but I don’t know about you, but it doesn’t make me feel warn and fuzzy and good all over. I think the ad is very degrading to women. Tell me this, How does the image have anything to do with what they are wearing. The emphasis is on the action that is taking place in the photograph. You can barely even see the dress she is wearing.

First problem: What is it selling? Clothes? Brand? People? Body? What it really looks like is they are promoting sex, rape, gangbangs etc. However, they are actually promoting attitude. The sexy attitude? Can sexiness be promoted a different way? Mabe you can focus more on the clothes? Make it less raunchy, maybe more sophisticated. Maybe a sexier layout instead of a sexier pose.

First of all, I find this ad very terribly done. It’s very intimidating as a female, to look at it. So simply, I think just by removing the 3 guys in the background would take away a large portion of the ‘gangbang’ feel.

I like this ad. Where’s the controversial part? If you want, have the lady sit high and mighty sexily on a sexy looking chair, looking all empowering. The poor males then cower at her feet. Maybe even have her pick up guys at a lineup for her insatiable appetite. She got the power!

Seems like gangbang to me with the female highly enjoying it. Then again this seems to mean that the product is promoting the sex appeal of the men (and maybe the women). How about you turn the image to portrait instead of landscape or tilted 45 degrees. So it’s like dancing. Dancing can be sexy too. Then the guys can stand around as usual. Change background to some dance background?

Just one male and female model is enough. Too many male models just makes it look like they want to gangbang her! If they are trying to sell S&M, because of the black leather, the femlae should be more dominant, i.e. holding a whip. Heighten up the mood. Instead of looking like a virgin sacrificed and so vulnerable.

Too many irrelevant models in the background communicate sublimnally a sleazy connotation. What is with the black and white standees in the background? Abrupt cutting off of unneeded models heads and limbs is visually damaging. Profile projection of models is visually unsettling. Heavily oiled bodies are vastly passe and unappealing. Improvement proposal: 1. Setting, change to a more believable set with furniture like a couch. 2. Remove oil. 3. Frontal projection.

Too much use of male models to illustrate the message. Male models do not need to be bare naked in the top half to make this advertisement tasteful. Perhaps not so sexually intended to convey some meaning? Possible suggestions: 1. Cover up and remove unnecessary models. 2. Less is more, simplicity to work.







SONY PSP SUGGESTIONS:

While we can all agree that Sony meant no ill will, I really find it hard to believe Sony’s explanation about how it merely contrasts the white and black PSP. They are essentially the same product in different colors; why the animosity between the two metaphors in the ads? It makes no sense. The last thing anyone should want is for their own product lines to clash. I guess Sony evades the rule by making one product line clash with itself?

What would have been a clever idea would have been to have a white figure with black clothing/hair, and a black figure with white clothing/hair, thus (sort of) negating racial conflict. Does the white figure represent the black or white PSP? If they represent the black one, then how can they be making a pro-white statement?

If the ads involved a white and black figure in a cooperative outlook, and with a less confrontational slogan than ‘white is coming’, even something as simple as ‘black and white’ with white in italics.. then no one would even bat an eyelid at this. Indeed, there might even be a chance among the more Politically-correct circles that Sony would be applauded for the encouragement of good inter-race relations.

A picture of an aryan woman assaulting a black woman, with the slogan ‘white is coming’ has racist connotations. A picture of a black woman assaulting an aryan woman, (especially with the slogan “Black is coming”) would have equally racist connotations. If it didn’t have the slogan, perhaps not.

If this was an advert with two identical twins - only one being platinum blonde and one being black haired there wouldn’t be any problem. Even if they were posed in the exact same position as this I dont think there would be any outcry at all. Or if the first round of PSP’s were green and the second round of them were red, and the models were body painted to those colours, nobody would have a problem with it either.

I dont see what the big deal it. If the situation was reversed, there would not be an issue. Then again, they could have used cartoon PSPs to depicts this. Plus, that chick looks like a freak!

Its nothing to do with who is seen as dominant. The advert highlights and uses the colour of peoples skin as the basis of its message. Defining people only by their colour is racism. What if they had used black and white monkeys? Would we still be having this discussion? I don’t think so.

Show them together, show them seperate, but don’t show one trying to overpower the other. If it is part of a series where the role is reversed then neither is “winning”, therefore neither is portrayed to be inferior to the other, therefore it can’t be racist.

They should have had a black and white chick that look almost identical, and a 4th ad picture depicting them covered in mud so much so that you can not tell who is who (caption - “good clean fun”).

First why did they go out their way to find the blackest person they could find? Second why is it so hard to see the details of the black (woman/man) in this ad? If this is infact a black woman why is she portraded so plainly while the white woman is looking very attractive with seductive clothing and a far greater detail. The black woman does not even appear to have makeup on. Why is the black woman displayed with her eyes closed hands by her side position? The black woman seems to be the undesired thing where as the white woman is the thing to be lusted after. One could say the white woman(white Playstation looks supperior to the black playstation). Think about it what would have been wrong with this white woman facing off with a Beyonce? That pair would definitely look more equal then this photo of a black person in the plainest of cloths against this well dressed nicely made up white woman.







PEPSI MAX SUGGESTIONS:

I think to show this idea doesn’t have to be in the way that show a lonely calorie is going to kill itself, it is too extreme maybe. Maybe can just use illustration of a calorie with lonely, sad face. For using funny illustration style, I think it’s already good because if they don’t then it will be too sad with the idea of lonely calorie. I mean the ‘lonely’ itself is already negative meaning, so the illustration might be good to show the ‘happy’ side.

Dark humour! If I didn’t read the caption, I wouldn’t knew the blue guy is the lonely calorie. My initial impression was the blue guy still look like part of pepsi. If calorie is the ‘boycotted’ part, maybe it shouldn’t be in a roundish shape that is quite similar to pepsi’s logo. Overall didn’t remind me of the brand, think it should be more obvious. Because you only have 1 to 2 sec at of advertising time per person.

Pepsi as a brand, ‘blood’ and ‘gun’ are the key deciding factors that makes the piece ‘dark’. The graphicness of the blood coming out the back of the head... brain splatter from a gun is a conversation that I am not ready to have with a 5 year old and is certainly something I don’t want associated with an innocent drink I may have in the fridge. The character could portray a happier look? The brand association, on a lighter note could revolve around happier motifs but still retaining the ‘sucidal’ approach. Replace them to something friendlier and create crude humor instead of out front seriousness. Crude humor! Play on that.

They could have avoided some of controversy with a lonely calorie fondling a blow-up calorie. But I doubt avoiding controversy was the point.

A drawing depicting suicide by cartoonish methods like strapping himself to a rocket is one thing... but I do think they carried it a step too far with the gun. Those are things that happen in real life, and very very sensitive subjects for people considering it as well as people who have lost loved ones to suicide. Topics like that are inappropriate to be exposed in a way that over-simplifies them. Yes, as a society we are desensitized to violence, but that doesn’t mean we need to exploit what manners and tact that we have left. What it really comes down to is that Pepsi could have sent the same message by using more “Saturday-morning-cartoon violence,” and that’s how it should have been.

The concept is good and there are ways to deal with these issues - the creative team just needed to work harder/push the concept further. The classic bugs bunny characters were able to express these sentiments without the need for disturbing graphic images - it is not the matter of “What” action they did as much as it is “How” it was represented/illustrated. For these print ads they took a more crass easy way out versus trying to find a more elegant solution that would be more socially acceptable to the general populous. A good concept and a good illustration does not guarantee a good ad.

That’s a pretty harsh route for that calorie to be taking. I agree suicide isn’t exactly the best way to go with this one.

Pepsi in not promoting suicide yet they are not showing a positive picture of one single calorie either. Death is final and people get hurt and some never recover from the losses. Put the humor back not the tragedy in.

There are some things that really are inappropriate. I would say using suicide to promote your low-cal drink is right up there. Of course, they do say the calorie is “very, very, very” lonely so I suppose that means the only out is suicide. If the poor little calorie was only “very, very” or even “very” lonely, he would just need some heavy-duty counseling.

I like this ad. I absolutely love the artwork. But I do understand why it would be problematic. The controversy will probably do well for the product, though. What I would do is, rework the ad, minus the suicide theme, and do a worldwide public apology for the old ad. That would create an interest in the product, and at the same time, cut costs on doing a full blown worldwide-scale advertising campaign.

All the advertisements that I have come across while archiving are split into the 3 categories in the legend.

The lights behind advertisements can be perfectly represented by the three hues of traffic lights; red for banned or rejected, yellow for controversial (may be banned and rejected in some places while accepted or created a commotion in others) and green for approved advertisements. The city's night view which is saturated in green reflects the majority of approved advertisements seen in our daily lives while some controversial and banned advertisements exist too.

I am certain that soldiers, fighters and armies all over the world would love this retry feature. The “Retry” Ad for Sony’s PlayStation Portable player gives you a gruesome visual with limps and organs all over the place; a retry is most welcome!

The ad was photographed by Kaustubh Kamat with art direction by Pavel Roy for the Sir JJ Institute of Applied Art advertising school, Mumbai, India.

Ad: Vandol Cream. Controversy: Perhaps a tad too graphic for North America, this ad for vitamin cream in the Philippines ran with the slogan "For less irritable babies. Vitamins A + D - Vandol Cream". (Courtesy DM9 Jayme Syfu)