Fragrance analysis essay

Fragrance Analysis FASH10106: Creative Networks 201415 Half Year 2 Rebecca McLaughlin N0575814

Tom Ford for men 2007 campaign analysis Introduction American designer Tom Ford is renowned for his racy attitude and overtly sexual flare.

As the creative director in charge of the Gucci campaign that featured a model with the letter G shaved into her pubic hair, it is evident that his approach to advertising can be considered somewhat Risqué.

Unsurprisingly, in 2007 when he teamed up with the industries infamous erotically inclined photographer, Terry Richardson for his “Tom Ford for men” fragrance campaign, they sparked global controversy, complaints and drastically increased sales figures for the year.

This use of sexual shock factor and female objectification comes as no surprise when we look back Ford’s contribution within other high profile designer brands. Earlier in his career he held the role of creative director for both Gucci and YSL. During his very successful tenure at both brands, he reinvigorated their image with cutting-edge sexually charged marketing, featuring nudity and themes verging towards pornographic, these include female same-sex images, a theme dubbed “lesbian chic” and full frontal male nudity in an advertisement for YSL’s fragrance for men, M7 in 2002

The Big Idea Richardson’s images took the premise of sex sells to a whole new, disruptive yet effective extreme.

The pictures are designed to shock, with high doses of explicit nudity, which are undeniably captivating weather you are a fan of his work or not.

The campaign consists of two main shots, The most explicit shows a woman with the phallic fragrance bottle held between her naked thighs, another shows a woman clutching her bare breasts with the bottle wedged between.

Interestingly, the original images to promote the fragrance were shot by Marilyn Minter, American artist and photographer who’s work also often contains quite an erotic theme, but as the images were deemed reasonably demure, Ford had them replaced.

The decision to swap the images was explained by a spokeswoman for Tom Ford Beauty, ‘We loved the original Marilyn Minter images, but while on a shoot with Richardson in Milan, we decided that a sharper, more graphic approach clearly communicated the bold and provocative mood of the fragrance.’

Also, following on from the “Tom Ford for men” campaign, Ford and Richardson collaborated once again for his Spring/ Summer 2008 campaign, which again, featured hyper-sexualised imagery containing both Male and Female full frontal nudity.

Ford has created his his whole brand image based around the marketing story of a glorified luxury lifestyle, targeting a masculine demographic that are primarily driven by two things, sex and success.

I believe this advertisement accurately represents the essence of Tom Fords brand, as it represents, what he believes his target market to covet over everything else.

Semiotic Analysis Creative Concept The sexually charged and hedonistic aesthetic of these images is very typical of the work of Terry Richardson, who is absolutely no stranger when it comes to controversy due preferred choice of youthful looking modes, and the sexual explicit nature of his shoots. Hadley Freeman of The Guardian claims,“What marks Richardson out is he has been repeatedly accused of sexual harassing young women modelling for him.”

In response to these allegations, Richardson

said, “I just want to take a moment to say I’m really hurt by the recent and false allegations of insensitivity and misconduct.

I feel fortunate to work with so many extraordinary people each and every day.

I’ve always been considerate and respectful of the people I photograph and I view what I do as a real collaboration between myself and the people in front of the camera.”

In saying this, despite his tarnished reputation within the industry, I feel his style embodies the essence of Tom Fords brand image, although its not an image I agree with. From a feminist point of view, Tom Ford ads are a perfect representation of a point made by Kenon Breazeale discusses in his article “In Spite of Woman” that focuses on the concepts of “consumption has been viewed as an attribute of middle-class femininity, some of our era’s most aggressively onedimensional representations of women have resulted from attempts to count men as consumers” (Breazeale 230). The set of advertisements that present the woman, hairless and oiled, seeming to serve merely as an object of sex proves this concept of advertising to men.

This can be further supported by the spring ’08 campaign produced by Ford and Richardson, where the man is fully clothed in Tom Ford menswear he is shown as the more powerful component, where as the woman is left naked to show her lesser power and state to the man. By giving the male consumer the image of having power over a woman, the ad is directly speaking to the male and drawing them in to believe that if he were to buy their product he would have that power they portray.

(Crow, 2010) Roland Barthes, (Author of “Elements of semiology”, 1968) applied linguistic concepts to other visual media which carry meaning, through application of this theory we can see there are many signifiers within the this campaign. The most blatant is the naked woman, which signifies sexuality.

The fact her lipstick and fingernails are both matching bright red signifies desire and lust as well as sexuality.

Her open mouth is a very erotic signifier, which can also mean sexuality and submissiveness towards her male counterpart. Her skin is very shinny, completely hairless and oiled, which evokes feelings of heat and passion.

In order to signify arousal and vulnerability The strategic placement of the phallic symbol of the fragrance bottle in her cleavage diverts the viewer gaze towards her breasts.

In contrast to the woman in the ad, who’s combined field of signs can be considered lustful and sexual, the white background is a sign of purity and innocence.

When decoded, the signs within this advertisement clearly establish a straightforward message. Tom Ford aims to create an air of titillation and excitement for his consumer when they use his product.

The placement of this advertisement was vital to its success, the advertisements were featured in GQ magazine, which I believe was a perfect fit as the target market for this publication is a similar demographic to that of Tom Fords fragrance line. Young adult males who are style conscious, driven and in tune with popular culture.

References 1. Crow, D. (2010). Visible signs. Lausanne: AVA Academia.

“Deeply vulgar

and went beyond bad taste to actually offend the public’s sensibility”

2. Breazeale, K. (no date) ‘In Spite of Women: “Esquire” Magazine and the Construction of the Male Consumer’, Signs. The University of Chicago Press. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/3174925 ?sid=21105790164461&uid=2&uid=2134&uid=4&uid=3739256&uid=70 3. City, E. (2008) ‘Tom Ford Ads Banned in Italy’. Eswaran. Available at: http://artfcity.com/2008/04/24/tomford-ads-banned-in-italy/

Bibliography 1. http://www.marieclaire.co.uk/news/celebrity/160319/tom-ford-reveals-controverisal-ad-campaign.html 2. http://www.styleite.com/beauty/8-perfume-ads-way-more-provocative-than-rihannas-rogue/

Execution

Summary

Due to its graphic content, the campaign was banned in Italy, personally I found it surprising that this is the only country that refused to allow its publication. The campaign was deemed ‘sexually implicit’ (Eswaran, 2008)and the IAA (Italian Advertising Institute) said that they were ‘Deeply vulgar and went beyond bad taste to actually offend the public’s sensibility… it does beyond acceptable limits for advertising’ (Eswaran, 2008)and concluded by saying how the advertisements are ‘an offensive gesture which insults women and the dignity of all.’(Eswaran, 2008) Possibly if Richardson had toned down the extent of the explicit nature of the campaign, it would have been deemed suitable to be shown in Italy, and possibly other publications that may have refused to

There is no denying the effectiveness of this campaign, it is globally recognised for pushing the boundaries of social acceptability within advertising.

Also it proved yet again that sex, really does sell as it significantly increased sales for Tom Ford after its release, but to what cost?

publish the advertisement globally.

I find the extent to which it objectifies and creates unrealistic viewpoint of women and sexuality as an entire premese is distasteful, chauvinistic and offensive.

Some may propose that it is innovative in the sense that it is breaking taboos and pushing boundaries, but personally I say that it has pushed one boundary too far.

3. http://mancunion.com/2013/11/13/top-5-controversial-fashion-campaigns/ 4. http://www.businessoffashion.com/terry-richardson 5.http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/06/terry-richardson-interview.html

Word count: 1,300 words