Send this issue of The Lowbrow Lowdown to a friend!

3.15.04
Spanking the Cheeky Monkey
-- OR --
Cool Clitannia
Catherine was a lovely, easy-going Brit, the kinda chick I really admired. One evening while visiting a college friend of mine, she reported in her typical nonchalant manner on the condition of a pal back in England who'd been upset over a relationship breakup. "I'd gotten so sick of her attitude," recalled Catherine, "I went into her room, told her she needed to relax, and tossed a load of porno mags on her bed and told her to go to it." I marveled at her frankness. This chick was just too cool.

I attribute the unabashed candor with which Catherine discussed an intimate subject such as…uh…diddling one's naughty bits…to her personality. Some however, like the purveyors of prurient pleasure products portrayed in a 3/4 Salon article, would probably contend that living in England as opposed to the puritanical U.S. was what really influenced her openness about sexuality.

Ann Summers, a UK chain store that sells items such as bustiers, lovecuffs, clit kits and butt bandits, appears to be thriving. Then there's trendy London department store, Selfridges. The shop featured upscale designer vibrators by Myla in a holiday window display. And a more traditional department store, Liberty's, sold more of the Myla brand "Bone" vibrator ($360 retail) than any other single product that season. Even the U.K. edition of Good Housekeeping has gotten in on the throb-fest by testing vibrators as part of the launch of its science section. (I guess it was more like pocket rocket science in this case.)

What's behind the trend? Marketing, of course. Not only does jacking up the price of jacking off give items like Myla's Bone instant cachet, the sex toy sales approach itself has shifted. At Ann Summers stores, for instance, the overall presentation apparently helps cleanse the merchandise of its traditionally unseemly quality. "The message is clear," suggests the story's author, "Seedy is men selling sex to other men, or women selling sex to men, but not women selling sex to other women. When that's the case…sex is safe enough to sell right next to Nine West."

Achieving the same success here in the states, on the other hand, may not be possible for these companies. In the story, Ann Summers CEO Jacqueline Gold comments that she "could eventually imagine launching in the U.S," although she thinks "the U.S. is more conservative." Myla co-founder Charlotte Semler is more blunt. Even though it currently sells Myla's lingerie, she believes Neiman Marcus wouldn't consider carrying the company's fiddling tools "Because you've got a whole bunch of religious fundamentalists in the U.S."

Here in prudeland we prefer hiding our heads in the sock drawer. Writes Wicoff, "It is still OK to sell 'massagers' but not vibrators…. " She concludes, "As long as Americans speak of sex aids in terms of dysfunction and disease, it seems, and not in terms of orgasm for the fun of it, American's puritan moral minority is not offended and all is well."

Recent actions taken against Howard Stern and other talk show hosts in response to the FCC's post-Super Bowl clampdown lend credence to the notion that American society is overwhelmingly sanctimonious. Still, I don't know if I concur with the "Americans are too puritanical to buy sex toys unless they're delivered via mail in a plain brown wrapper" argument.

I'll admit, living in a blue state along the east coast, it's easy to forget just how socially conservative people in other parts of the country can be. But c'mon, there are plenty of people here who could be enticed into buying sexy goodies openly if they were marketed in the way that stores like Ann Summers and Selfridges market their provocative products, rather than in the usual smutty sex shop or cheesy Spencer Gifts sorta ways. I'm peeved by the notion that we Americans are so much more uptight than the Brits. The truth is, according to this article anyway, selling vibrators in an overt manner became acceptable in England only after they were packaged as pricey designer goods or deemed scientific by mum's favorite magazine. So, who's in denial now?

To me, if the lack of respectable sex toy sales here in the U.S. proves only one thing, it's Americans' rugged self-sufficiency. Vibrators are for pussies!



Strange Promos Afoot
-- OR --
Faux Fur Pas
"Cut through the clutter." As a reporter covering the interactive advertising biz, this may be the one phrase I hear spewed by industry folk more often than any other, besides maybe "This is off the record, right?"

Most advertisers delude themselves into thinking that their marketing strategies are so special that their messages can bypass the onslaught of other commercial communications hurled at us each day, thus, cutting through the clutter to make an impression on the targeted audience. Dream on guys.

Well, Stockholm agency Cole, Russel & Pryce not only managed to cut through the clutter with a recent promotion, the shockmeisters hacked off its bloody leg while they were at it. According to a 2/12 adland report, the not-so-sheepish agency sent colleagues an email message featuring the image of a wee widdew wamb wiv its weg whacked off and a bleating plea to visit the company's website "for the sake of the lamb." As noted in a follow-up adland post, "90 people got a mail with the image of the cute lamb, and later 12 carefully chosen people friends/colleagues received the DM with the butcher-waste hoof." Mmm…tasty.

Not surprising, news of the lamb stunt spread like ivy, and eventually got 'round to a couple of unimpressed clients, including -- get this -- a Scandinavian animal rights organization, Förbundet djurens rätt (Animal Rights Sweden). Doh. The dander went up at Vodafone, too.

The agency's next step? To sever the man behind the promo as if he were a gangrened limb. Creative director, founder and part owner of the agency, Olle Sjödén got hoofed to the curb.

Beastly, mafia-like marketing methods aside, it's the firm's wounded knee-jerk reaction to its clients' response that seems most astonishing. First off, the dismay should have been anticipated and weighed heavily against the arguable benefits of the inevitable cheap publicity that would result from the campaign.

But more significant, the CR&P underlings should have realized that ousting the company's top creative and founder wasn't likely to restore clients' confidence in the agency. Hey, in the coup de barn that took place in Orwell's Animal Farm, the uprising against Mr. Jones did little to establish any lasting peace or stability. What it did do is foment chaos and dissension among the ranks.

On second thought, perhaps the final outcome had been intended all along, a ruse to get an impotent leader to shoot himself in the foot. Just think, they could have killed two sacrificial lambs with one promo had the rebels announced the corporate overhaul by distributing Sjödén parts to select colleagues. Who knows? It may even have convinced Animal Rights Sweden to give CR&P more work.



Snips and Snails and Meticulously Trimmed Tails
-- OR --
Queer Eye for the Small Fry
Groomed man: as far as I'm concerned this ought to remain an oxymoron. Don't get me wrong, I like a guy to be clean, but he'd better not be prettier than I am (or thinner for that matter). And for chrissakes, he'd better not own more skincare products. Isn't it bad enough that grown men buy the jive about women wanting guys to highlight their hair and shave their chests? Apparently not. Now Procter & Gamble and OTOvertime want wee men to lose their masculinity before they even acquire it.

OK, maybe I'm being a bit extreme, but the idea of marketing a line of shampoo, hair gel, pomade, deodorant, antiperspirant, and fragrances to boys from 8 to 16 gets under my skin. As featured in a 3/5 New York Times article, the new products are licensed by P&G to OTOvertime and will be sold under the OT brand name. At least the product names, including OT Pit Defense deodorant, Lid Lock pomade and Body Slam Sports Wash are masculine in a post-gym locker room wedgie kinda way. Evidently those boy-friendly titles were spawned during "brainstorming sessions" with a slew of little fellas.

But here's a surefire way to kill any interest from kids: their moms seem to like the idea. In the piece, Stephen J. Baggott, director of external business development at P&G, stresses that moms are "frustrated with the huge gap between the kiddy products their boys have outgrown and their dad's products, which they don't want to buy.'' What they oughtta be frustrated with is the huge gap in their wallets resulting from their blind acceptance of marketing ploys that persuade them into paying twice as much for the same stupid suds in a different bottle.

Did I mention the article's headline, "Marketing to the Youngest Metrosexuals"? First of all, referring to youngsters in this way is just plain icky. And what exactly is the Times implying about boys who use hair gel or specially designed deodorant? The term "metrosexual" typically defines an exceptionally well-groomed, heterosexual male, the kind of guy who gets manicures, has a tanning salon membership or probably wishes he was lucky enough to have access to OT product when he was eight. Still, the usage of the term merely dances around the idea that even boys who use fancy toiletries might be light in the Timberlands.

In this P.C. world in which we live, attributing excessive male grooming to homosexuality is considered offensive stereotyping, while attributing male slovenliness to heterosexuality is perfectly acceptable. Case in point: Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. On that show, gay men impress their heightened hygiene, dressing and decorating sensibilities on straight men, who, as dictated by this society's illogical political correctness, end up not looking homosexual when the show's over, but "metrosexual." (Is it any wonder there's an American Express Open Small Business ad running alongside the article that reads, "See How David Collins Created Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."?)

It's bad enough that girls who still have their baby teeth are sexualized in this country. Now, li'l boys could fall prey to the misguided media and marketing machines, by thinking they need some special brand of body wash as opposed to a plain ol' bar of soap, or a special brand of hair gel as opposed to no hair gel at all. Ya know, among my most comforting memories are of those late summer evenings when my younger brother would hurtle himself into the house, late for dinner, an odor as potent and vital as wet wool preceding him. Boys are supposed to smell sometimes! It's a rite of passage, like the bequeathal from elder to younger brother of a November 1983 Penthouse discovered (according to legend) amidst a neighbor's trash.

Thankfully market research still shows that adolescent boys won't spend their own money on this glam goop. So, parenthood expert, author, lecturer and talk-show guest, Kathy Peel has been commissioned by the company to mention OT in her upcoming appearances and publications in the hopes of coaxing moms into shelling out cash for the stuff.

I guess that almost seals OT's success. After all, doting mothers will do just about anything to ensure they remain the only woman in their son's lives.


Send this issue of The Lowbrow Lowdown to a friend!


The Lowbrow Lowdown is available for syndication.

Disclaimer
The The Lowbrow Lowdown™ is a registered trademark. Any use of The The Lowbrow Lowdown™ name or content without consent of Kate Kaye is strictly prohibited.

While best efforts were used in collecting and preparing the information contained herein, The Lowbrow Lowdown™ does not assume, and hereby disclaims, any liability for any loss or damage caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions resulted from negligence, accident or other causes.