Today we bring you a new contributor Dr. NutHut. He will be writing all sorts of opinion pieces for us. Be sure to let us know your thoughts on our newest addition to the MUB force.
Advertising is an art and in the world of art you’re given an endless supply of freedom. It’s hard to judge art because really there is no wrong way to produce it. However in the world of advertising this art has to be formulated to fit an audience. And in the process of it’s creation it must follow certain marketing, commercial and legal obligations along the way. Sometime ads come out that shock and even disgust individuals, which often is the intent. Or perhaps the endorsement was aimed at the audience drawn to that particular subject matter. Whatever the case the advertiser got your attention, even if you didn‘t want that. This happened recently with a particular promotion for
Diesel Underwear shot at the Brooklyn Law School.
The Dean of Brooklyn Law School Michael Gerber called the shots for Diesels Underwear ads inappropriate advertising that caused discomfort and embarrassment for the school. The Dean sent an email out to students apologizing for the ad campaign that was shot on the schools campus. “That’s how much respect they have for the school” said a local woman to the New York Post. Michael from Brooklyn NY said “I see nothing positive about this”. Jordan Hersch a student at the school said “I thought the ad was disgusting”. Some other students were not happy that the behavior in the ads was happening in their library.
After taking this criticism Diesel released more photos from the same campaign except this time the pictures where taken at the New York City Transit Museum. It featured models in Diesel underwear flashing imaginary passengers. However as opposed to the Law School's reaction, Aaron Donovan the Museums spokesman said “this photo shoot was closed to the public, and it provided revenue need to help keep the museum operating”. And even with the Brooklyn Law School shoot not everyone was upset. A lot of students had no problem with the campaign. One man named David from Brooklyn told the New York Post “It’s not inappropriate, it’s clothes, it’s fashion, it’s what Diesels known for”.
So did Diesel go to far? Although the School and many other individuals strongly feel they did, they have to admit legally Diesel did nothing wrong. The fashion company went through all the right channels and received full permission from the school to do the shoot. They went in, did their shoot, paid the school and went on their way. The school agreed to this. The school should have done their research if they were honestly worried about their reputation. A quick Google search of Diesel ads would have told them that they weren’t dealing with L.L. Bean. And Diesel has the full right to advertise this way directing their marketing to a more off-the-beaten-path demographic. Some may not agree with their style nor their grubby slogans and they don’t have to support the company. However we do want to support freedom and diversity. So it’s too bad the Brooklyn Law School had to undergo this discomfort but maybe now they know to do a little investigation before signing a contract. And Diesel well keep being Diesel.
