It is a question loaded with controversy, in a world where young people are increasingly exposed to images and content that make us consider the moral framework of our society. Western cultures have long enjoyed freedom of expression, which allows us to paint a rich and varied interpretation of our lives for art’s sake, to entertain, or to promote commercial enterprise. We challenge ourselves by pushing the boundaries of taste and over recent years, we have evolved to become more tolerant to the idea of sex being something we discuss – either via direct conversation or using a visual medium such as film or photography.
Sex, in its various guises, is of course a fundamental human function that is not only essential to the future of the human race, but is a complex and compelling part of our existence. I think, because it largely happens behind closed doors, any allusion to sex in public is powerful.
Whether we are watching a pop video, reading a novel, taking in a documentary film, sex infiltrates so many areas of our lives. We are intrigued by the intimate lives of others: how, when, where and with who? Who is a good lover, Scarlett Johansson, George Clooney? What makes a good lover? Is it about being beautiful? Do you need to be fit? Confident? Experienced? Or is it simply about finding the chemistry of being with the right person?
As a race, we are largely driven by a desire to be attractive. Whether that is about attracting a mate, or about negating our insecurities in a social context, we want to appeal to others. And a large part of that appeal comes from the way we present ourselves visually. There are numerous academic studies that demonstrate that we form opinions of those around us within three seconds of meeting someone, a process shaped by their appearance. We also know that statistically, those who look ‘attractive’ - whatever that means - tend to be more popular and rise rapidly in business.
So, hand in hand with this desire to appear attractive is the notion of wanting to portray ourselves as sexual beings. Even if we already have a mate, to use a basic anthropological term, the inclination to be desired by others does not go away. Even as a suppressed aspiration, and adapted to suit our own lifestyles and time of life, that need is there on some level in almost all of us.
Which is why sex sells clothes. And bags. And shoes. And sunglasses. And fragrance – gallons of fragrance, in fact. There are many, many brands out there and every single one of them is attempting to stand out in a crowded marketplace. From the grand, global luxury goods houses to high street chains, sex is used as a valuable selling tool. And it works.
Especially in this era of social networking. Brands are desperate to trend on Twitter and to attract ‘Likes’ on their Facebook pages, but that is not real brand engagement. It is conversation, but is unlikely to convert to sales. So, whether courting controversy is an effective marketing technique or not is, I believe, questionable.
When I was running Aquascutum, we did campaigns with Gisele Bundchen and Pierce Brosnan. One inspired by The Thomas Crown Affair featured a girl who Brosnan was having liaisons with. In one frame, he sits at a desk, suave in shirt, suit and tie, signing some documents, accompanied by a glamorous woman in a state of undress, lingerie and stockings revealed beneath her unbuttoned shirt. It wasn't explicit in what it showed, but the implication was there. It wasn't sordid or alluding to anything perverse, but a snapshot of a good-looking couple enjoying a little healthy passion.
In another shot, she lay near a car in a field, clearly having enjoying a lovely picnic, wearing one of the brand’s signature trench coats, and where it fell open, you could see her stocking top. It was alluring, without being blatantly revealing. But it was using sex to sell clothes: a still image capturing a moment in time. What had she been doing? What was she about to do? All to sell more trenchcoats – and the accessories that are the foundation of any luxury goods business in the 21st century.
In order for it to work as an effective sales tool, sex must be used in an elegant, eloquent way that reflects a customer’s aspirations. If it is used crudely as a mere way to court publicity, it may raise the profile of that brand, but it probably won’t have a direct impact on sales – certainly not a positive longer term way, anyway.
A few years ago I took over as Chairman of the lingerie company Agent Provocateur, which had been started by the talented Joe Corre (son of Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren) and his then wife Serena Rees. When they launched in the mid-90s, it was an exciting, dynamic business that allowed women to have fun and to flirt with the idea of a little naughtiness hidden under their clothes. Their marketing was saucy, very tongue-in-cheek, their advertising campaigns with Kylie Minogue and Kate Moss were legendary. Using sex to sell Agent Provocateur lingerie was inherent in the brand DNA, there was never a pretence otherwise. As the brand grew, they took saucy underwear from behind the closed doors of Soho into the main stream, as they continued to push the boundaries of sex as a marketing tool.
So the world we live in is constantly evolving and our tolerance and acceptance of different behaviour is ever-changing. In the 1970s, the Flake chocolate advert broke a lot of advertising boundaries and was deemed to be sexually explicit. Today, no-one would bat an eyelid if that was shown on our screens. By the turn of the millennium, we were much more liberated. The internet and its ability to break down many traditional barriers had opened our eyes. Yet, in 2000, an advert featuring a naked – bar a pair of gold strappy sandals - Sophie Dahl reclining, hand over her breast, head tilted suggestively caused outrage. The ASA received almost 1000 complaints resulting in the billboard being removed from public view, and the print ad was only permitted to be used in suitable publications.
What was it selling? Perfume. Shot by Stephen Meisel, one of the world’s top fashion photographers, and directed by YSL’s newly-appointed creative head, Tom Ford, the creative was designed to put the slightly staid YSL on the map once again as a desirable brand. Opium, the fragrance it was selling remains one of the label’s best-selling scents.
The controversy around that ad was probably the best thing that ever happened in terms of the Opium fragrance and its success or failure, Sophie is a very beautiful woman and Tom and Stephen were very clever, commercially pushing serious boundaries at the time. Was it right? Would it happen today? I think that image seems pretty tame by today’s standards: it would have to be more extreme and reveal more than Sophie did. It was sensual rather than overtly sexual, which is a line I would draw.
The fashion world knows that they are riding a movement that is delivering sales for them, and I don’t think there is anything wrong with that unless they move from sexy to crude; a fine line. When you do a sexy campaign, you get loads of coverage and people shop. The truth is, customers buy into it.
However, the strongest way to develop a loyal clientele who buy right into your product offer is to have a strong brand DNA that resonates with a specific audience. Look at Michael Kors, who has built a phenomenal business without resorting to sensationalism, because his collections are truly covetable for the women he is targeting, and the handwriting of his label runs so strongly throughout that he doesn't need to do anything to grab extra attention. His whole style philosophy touches the sensibilities of modern women – or at least the ones who have the aspiration, money and lifestyle to wear his clothes.
There has been much talk in the media recently about fashion being pornographic and being a bad influence on young people. I think in reality this is rare in the context of fashion advertising, but is perhaps more of an issue in the incredibly lucrative and highly competitive world of fragrance or some areas of editorial. Many fashion houses license out their names to perfume houses, who then develop the marketing of the product. Clearly, there is no visual handwriting to a smell, so they need to create an aesthetic that resonates with the fragrance consumer. Why do we wear fragrance? To be attractive to others. Therefore you are more likely to get controversial images that resort to blatant sexuality and perhaps more explicit concepts in fragrance marketing. This is exacerbated by the prevalence of celebrity fragrances: Rihanna, Beyonce, Lady Gaga and other music stars have big-selling perfumes to their name, which are clearly sold on the back of their carefully crafted image: their own brand DNA, much of which is based on different takes on sex and sexuality.
If we educate young people and imbue them with the confidence to take control of their own bodies, then as a society we can be reflective about what we see before us. Of course young people are more exposed to images than previous generations: in the 1970s Helmut Newton’s photography was only really seen by those who bought glossy magazines and visited art galleries. Today, the work of influential photographers is seen by millions around the world, thanks to the internet. But, I don’t want to see a repressed culture where we censure creativity. I don’t like the idea of being prudish and over-managing messages.
However, this is a mere ‘movement’ in our aesthetic taste, and will evolve into something different. To push the boundaries even further, brands will have to start putting clothes back on the models in campaigns soon. Sex will become less of a novelty and we have to move in the opposite direction to be noticed. We may not get back to the old days, where ladies are sitting in their suits and hats, but I think there will be a big swing back to a more demure aesthetic. Won’t that be novel?
