Nikon Advertisments; I can't BELIEVE they...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jay Peg said:
Nikon's advertising department okay'ed these ads... I haven't seen these in the American market, have you? :angel:
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as Nikon's advertising department. Nikon Europe, Nikon USA, Nikon Australia etc. (all of which are individual companies separate from Nikon Inc.) design and manage their own advertising to what they think is appropriate for their own market.
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
Welcome to Amerika, where everyone smokes pot and looks at pr0n while drinkin' a beer in our skivvies. That is, when we're not busy watchin' NASCAR or chasin' them 'possums. Y'all have a nice day now, y'hear?

If you can't poke fun at yourself, you shouldn't poke fun at others. ;)

Now, about this "moral majority" trying to lead the Good Life... :bang:
Click to expand...

Didja drink beer in yer undies while watching the Giants yesterday. :D
 
The great thing about fiscal democracy is that if the ad offends you then you don't buy the product.
 
Kevin said:
Nudity and sexual connotations in public advertising are long-term mental terror tactics. When will it all end so that we can may get on and concentrate on more important tasks?

They really treat us like horny animals over here. It doesn't matter if they are selling yogurt or chocolate or sausage snacks. Tits and butts are wiggling all over the place.

If you think about it, a breast was really just meant to give milk to babes, not to show off (be used as a vanity symbol).
Click to expand...

I like this explanation, but in my trip to France last year I did not see one boob on TV. Could it be that the Parisians are provincial compared to the rest of Europe.
 
Last edited:
The louder the Bible is thumped....

The louder the Bible is thumped....

The louder the Bible is thumped the more hypocritical the thumper is. Salvation of souls takes a back seat to money, suppression of others freedom and rights. My economic situation has always permitted me to live inexpensive neighborhoods in New York,Miami, Boston and San Francisco, I have never seen such hate and hypocrisy as I have witnessed since moving to Georgia. I remind my self that this is a country that was settled by Puritans. I could go on for an hour on this.
 
bmattock said:
You mean, like telling Americans how they should behave, that the morals they have chosen for themselves (regardless of how you feel about them) are wrong, and that they should change? That kind of sticking their noses where they don't belong? Is that the kind you mean?

I believe you are Australian, right. As in a citizen of? Living there and not here in the USA? So you have exactly WHAT business telling us how wrong our morals are? Please explain that one, I'm fascinated.

I can't recall the last time I thought to myself "Boy, those Australians just don't live right according to MY standards. I wish they'd change." But ya'll just did that - and somehow WE are the ones ruining YOUR fun? We're invading YOUR turf? We're telling YOU how to live?

Uh-huh.



Gee, ya think? I'll bet if you look in a mirror, you'll see one.



Funny, we're a big polyglot, all of us believe slightly different things, not many of us agree on all things, but we somehow ALL believe the same thing when it comes to boobies on TV, is that right? Odd, I never noticed that before. I guess we all vote for the same person and smoke the same brand of cigarettes, yes? I'm sorry, is that like thinking that everyone from Australian drinks Foster's Lager and says G'Day and wrestles crocodiles and carries huge knives and doesn't know what a bidet is? Like that? Yes, we're all alike here, we all believe boobies are sinful and we'll vanish in a puff of smoke straight to hell if we so much as think of touching one....BAMF. Oops.

OK, I'm back from hell.

How about this - the majority in this country don't want to see boobies on broadcast TV or on billboards, so we make laws that prohibit that sort of thing. Some localities don't have such a problem, and in those places, there is less resistance to it - some places are more strict. That's called 'community standards' and the way to get those things changed, if one believes they are wrong, is either become the majority and vote them in, or convince others to see things your way and vote them in. Either way, majority rules and that seems to me to be a pretty good idea.

Why should the majority not set the standards when it comes to community affairs that affect everyone? Are your rights in some way being violated because you can't see boobies on broadcast TV in most of the USA? Bearing in mind, of course, what I said earlier - there are boobies galore available to most Americans on demand - just not in public. So no one is denied access to boobies.

As to 'secret shame', I suppose one could argue even if we were all of the same mind with regard to broadcast boobies and billboard butts, none of us are perfect and even those with the highest morals quite often fall short of that goal. It is no sin to aim for high ethical standards and excellent morals, even if few of us can attain them. Of course, that makes those who try to be better people a target for those who don't think anyone can be better than a common animal and therefore should not try. Some of try, fail, and then are held up as laughing stocks for having even attempted it. Perhaps we should just roll around in the mud with the rest of the livestock, eh?



I think that sex sells, it always has, and it always will. Local ads are designed for local tastes and standards - which is why these types of ads don't run in the USA. I have nothing against sex, nothing against Nikon, and nothing against the ads. But this thread began as a bash on Americans for being - gasp - Americans; it was never about the ads. Or didn't you get that?
Click to expand...


Be ashamed of your most basic human form kids, it's dirty to be naked, it's dirty to be attracted to someone, it's dirty to have your own mind and make your own decisions. It's dirty and sinful to have a man love a man or a woman love a woman, it's dirty to question the baseline of belief, the divinity of life.
 
Last edited:
bmattock said:
As to 'secret shame', I suppose one could argue even if we were all of the same mind with regard to broadcast boobies and billboard butts, none of us are perfect and even those with the highest morals quite often fall short of that goal. It is no sin to aim for high ethical standards and excellent morals, even if few of us can attain them. Of course, that makes those who try to be better people a target for those who don't think anyone can be better than a common animal and therefore should not try. Some of try, fail, and then are held up as laughing stocks for having even attempted it. Perhaps we should just roll around in the mud with the rest of the livestock, eh?
Click to expand...

anybody see a straw man walk by?
 
Pablito said:
Anyone have any more naked ads?
Click to expand...

Not too naked, but maybe quite racy for its time when it appeared in 1962. This Miranda advert appeared in the August 1962 issue of Popular Photography magazine- an American Publication. The ad's copy is so un-PC...:D

348253933.jpg

and the ad has two variants in the same issue!

348253944.jpg

And, though not Naked, this Praktica advert - note the main tag line- would have been enough reason for Praktica, the ad agency responsible for it, and maybe even the magazine to be flooded with hate mail from all sorts of political advocacies:

348253894.jpg

More of "Mad Men" rather than Darren, Samantha's husband, in
"Bewitched".....
 
And another un-PC advert, this time for Leica, circa 1948. Appeared in National Geographic:

348253914.jpg


As someone had noted, its not the camera company's 'ad department' which likely did this, but the local importer/marketer/distributor who approved what their ad agency did.
 
Keith said:
Good grief ... B Mattock!

If it wasn't for pointless threads like this what other venues would you possibly have to express some of your occasionally ridiculous theories and opinions.

I respect a lot of what you say in other threads I've read ... but your opinions on morality and the right of other people to say what they think about your precious country abhor me. The US can take it on the chin as can any other country when it's values are being questioned ... get off your high horse!
Click to expand...
I'm quite surprised by this reply. I think Bill is doing a great job of defending his country (all by himself) in a reasonably objective manner.
I think perhaps not many people are understanding that he is not personally the stereotypical yank that other nationalities imagine - flag-waving, bible-thumping etc.
Basically he's saying America's standards are different from other countrys' and so what? If you don't like it don't move there. I know I'll never move to the U.S. but it's a great place to visit! Let's cut America (and Bill) some slack here.
So I think I need a new camera bag...
 
I really don't see how these Nikon ads (or the Olympus one for that matter) could be offensive in any way. The first Nikon ad shows two women in underwear. So what? The second ad is funny. It does what all ads are supposed to do: get our attention and get us to buy a product. Pictures of nude or scarcely clad men and women are used to market perfumes, cosmetic products, etc. and this is nothing new.

Nudity is much more accepted in Europe, but nor is it that common either. You'll find nudity on beaches. Breast feeding a child in public is something no one takes offence to, but what could be more natural than that?

Moreover, nudity has been a part of photography from the very first days photography was invented. Why would a nude picture taken by a famous photographer be considered art and nudity in advertisements something that is not acceptable?
 
fdigital said:
Be ashamed of your most basic human form kids, it's dirty to be naked, it's dirty to be attracted to someone, it's dirty to have your own mind and make your own decisions. It's dirty and sinful to have a man love a man or a woman love a woman, it's dirty to question the baseline of belief, the divinity of life.
Click to expand...

Did anyone say that? I certainly didn't.

What I said was that local communities set local community standards. If the majority of people in a given area believe the above statements, then that's what the local standards are. You may not agree with them - as it is clear you do not. So what?
 
Jan Van Laethem said:
I really don't see how these Nikon ads (or the Olympus one for that matter) could be offensive in any way. The first Nikon ad shows two women in underwear. So what? The second ad is funny. It does what all ads are supposed to do: get our attention and get us to buy a product. Pictures of nude or scarcely clad men and women are used to market perfumes, cosmetic products, etc. and this is nothing new.

Nudity is much more accepted in Europe, but nor is it that common either. You'll find nudity on beaches. Breast feeding a child in public is something no one takes offence to, but what could be more natural than that?

Moreover, nudity has been a part of photography from the very first days photography was invented. Why would a nude picture taken by a famous photographer be considered art and nudity in advertisements something that is not acceptable?
Click to expand...

Those are all good arguments, and I happen to agree with you - nudity doesn't offend me, either. Let's not play coy, however; the ad of the two women on the bed is meant to suggest that they are about to engage in hot lesbo lovin', which most heterosexual men seem to find very attractive. It is the 'sizzle, not the steak', as the advertising people like to say - it suggests without actually depicting.

My point here is not about what levels of nudity are and are not acceptable.

My point has been aimed at the initial post and the responses to it:

Nikon's advertising department okay'ed these ads... I haven't seen these in the American market, have you?
Click to expand...

It was an America-bash from the start. The O/P was suggesting (once again, how boring) that Americans are puritans, bluenoses, provincial, bible-thumping, horrible people because we do not have such advertising on broadcast television and billboards.

My reply is that we are not evil people just because we have different standards than most of Europe.

Not about nudity, per se, but about the right of local communities to set their own standards according to their own beliefs, whether you agree with them or not.

And even different communities in America have different standards. In San Francisco, apparent home of the O/P, they have gay pride parades that are often not much short of an outdoors gay orgy. Hey, it does not offend local sensibilities, so it is none of my business, I don't live there. Local communities, local standards.

I really don't see what is so wrong about that.
 
ZorkiKat said:
Not too naked, but maybe quite racy for its time when it appeared in 1962. This Miranda advert appeared in the August 1962 issue of Popular Photography magazine- an American Publication. The ad's copy is so un-PC...:D

and the ad has two variants in the same issue!

And, though not Naked, this Praktica advert - note the main tag line- would have been enough reason for Praktica, the ad agency responsible for it, and maybe even the magazine to be flooded with hate mail from all sorts of political advocacies:

More of "Mad Men" rather than Darren, Samantha's husband, in
"Bewitched".....
Click to expand...

I remember those ads, and in fact I have a largish collection of camera and photography magazines from the 1900's to the 1970's, where one can trace the changes in American tastes and tolerance. The ads you mention (and all Miranda ads were very much the same) were made primarily during the 'Sexual Revolution' of the 1960's.

Of course, that reinforces my point. Local communities apparently didn't have a problem with ads of that sort then - today, they do. Times change, and so do local standards.
 
Double Negative said:
Which is why we got kicked out of Europe, I seem to recall... ;)
Click to expand...

Well, the Puritans left for the reason that no one else could or would put up with their strict social rules, that's true. We speak of the Puritans leaving for 'religious freedom', but we often neglect to note that they wanted to make sure that their communities were ruled by their religion. There is a difference between a theocracy and a community that respects the rule of law as provided by our democratic society and still has its own community standards of decency. That is, modern cities and towns are not theocracies, but they do impose community standards that are based on the beliefs of their own citizens.

An interesting comparison - I never hear people speaking of the Amish in America and how they 'must change' their ways because they are so backwards and puritanical and how they refuse to allow nudity on TV (or TV at all, for that matter) in their communities. We respect their right to live as they choose.

But a small town in an average state in the USA? No way, bubba, they're not allowed to live as they wish. They're evil for suppressing those boobies and teaching their kids that nudity is wrong. They must be stopped.

Someone explain that one to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom