Menacing or Marketing? D&G's Controversial Ad

The ad that caused the controversy: Fantasy Gang Rape?


The ad they seem to be running instead


Below article reprinted from MSN NBC By Susanna Schrobsdorff, Newsweek

March 6, 2007 - The fashion design duo behind Dolce & Gabbana announced today that they are pulling a controversial print advertisement from publications worldwide following protests in Spain, and, egads, their home turf of Italy. The photo features a blank looking young woman in a bathing suit and high heels being pinned down by a glossy shirtless man while four other men look on.

Is the image glorifying gang rape or tapping into a sexual fantasy?
That may still be up for debate in some quarters. But Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women says the ad indisputably promotes violence against women and has put it at the top of their Web site's page of offensive advertisements. Meanwhile, Stefano Gabbana says that he regrets the way the ad was perceived and insists that he and his partner Domenico Dolce were not intending to demean women. He adds that the image is artistic and was meant to "recall an erotic dream, a sexual game."

Provocative images have been a staple for D&G, whose other ads have featured sexy scenes including one of a nude man lying down while several other clothed men look on seductively. Another ad, which was pulled last year from British publications, featured women brandishing knives. The most recent controversy broke out last month when the Spanish government demanded that D&G's "fantasy rape" ads be withdrawn. The country was coping with a wave of crimes against women at the time and public outrage was high. The designers complied, but said that Spain was "behind the times." That claim got harder to maintain on Friday when 13 Italian senators also demanded that the photo be taken out of circulation. On Tuesday, Stefano Gabbana said that they did not mean to "cause controversy," and were pulling the ads. But when is an onslaught of attention ever bad for a company looking to stay on fashion's leading edge?

We asked Kim Gandy at NOW in Washington and Stefano Gabbana in Milan, Italy, about the ad and about that elusive line between sexy and exploitative. (Gabbana responded via e-mail.)


Above: Dolce & Gabbana

Excerpts:

STEFANO GABBANA

NEWSWEEK: Were you surprised at the criticism of your ads in Italy and Spain?
Stefano Gabbana: It was never our purpose to cause any controversy and instigate violence against women. From both human and emotional points of view, we certainly do not want to attack women, a sex for whom we have always declared our love, as the feminine market represents 60 percent of our worldwide sales. We are businessmen and the results that our company achieves demonstrate it.

How did you hope women would respond when they saw the ads?
In Italy, the image first came out Feb. 5, in the most famous and bestselling [Italian] newspaper ... at that time, there was no reaction. The effects did not arrive in Italy until after the poor Spanish reaction [to] the ad. We understand that in Spain there is a truly important social emergency as far as violence against women [is concerned], which is why we did not want to offend anyone, so we immediately withdrew the image from all Spanish press. We want to reaffirm that the image does not represent rape or violence, but if one had to give an interpretation of the picture, it could recall an erotic dream, a sexual game.
Women's groups say the ads promote violence against women. Is that an overreaction?
We respect other people's opinions, but we do not look at it in this way.

Can you talk about how you navigate the border between what's considered sexy and what's considered offensive?
Sexy and offensive are two concepts very far from each other. Sexy can become vulgar according to how the item is worn and interpreted. From our point of view, we like to enhance everything that is beautiful and sexy in a woman; but, never offending, demeaning or being vulgar. We have always been in love with women and our collections are dedicated to their beauty.
Has your agency ever shown you a campaign that you thought went too far?
We do not work with agencies; we personally develop the campaigns' concept with photographers and art directors. From our point of view, we do not feel that we've ever gone too far.

You've been in the business for 20 years and your advertisements have successfully pushed the envelope before. But a number of your campaigns this year have gotten some bad press. Is this the strongest, or most negative reaction you've ever gotten to your ads?
We are sorry that unfortunately other campaigns also weren't understood, but we want to reaffirm that we never had the intention of causing noise or controversy in any way.

One might expect these kinds of images to attract protests in America, which is considered a little more prudish about sex than Europe. Are you surprised at the complaints about the ads in your home country—a place which is not known to be repressed?
As we already said, the reaction blew up in Italy only after it did in Spain. When it came out in February nobody was appalled, the reaction arose after a while, following what had happened in Spain. We are shocked because we do not agree, but we respect other people's opinions and do pay attention to the frustrations the advertising has caused worldwide.

Will you pull the ads from Italian publications?
The image will not be used going forward worldwide. It will come out only in publications that we could not block, because of printing deadlines.

KIM GANDY

NEWSWEEK: Where is the line between an ad that is about a sexy fantasy and something that is offensive?

Kim Gandy: The line there is whether one considers rape to be a sexy fantasy. The Dolce & Gabbana ad was a stylized gang rape.

Were you surprised that the ad caused such a stir in Italy and Spain, but not when it ran in Esquire magazine here in the United States?
It surprises me a little bit because I thought almost anything could be in Italian and French ads to some extent. I guess this goes too far even for a society that has traditionally objectified women. It was interesting to me that the Italian senators who made this objection were both women and men and were from the ruling party and the minority party. It crossed gender and party lines.


Above: NOW's Kim Gandy says that modern girls are'bombarded with the message that women are there for sex and are available for sex at anytime'

Do ads like this successfully sell clothing to women?
I think they were trying to sell clothes to men with this one. The woman was wearing a kind of bathing suit, but presumably the men were wearing Dolce & Gabbana clothes. It was in Esquire [magazine] here in the States and the idea that even a stylized image of rape appeals to a broad readership of men is disturbing. Interestingly, in Italy it ran in some women's magazines, which may have been what generated the response there.

You've got a number of ads on your "Love Your Body" Web site that you've deemed offensive to women. Should they all be removed from circulation?
Some of those ads are just insulting and of course there's a difference between being insulting and portraying women as less than human—as people to be raped or assaulted. The bourbon ad that said "Your bourbon has a great body and fine character. I wish the same could be said for my girlfriend," is more insulting. I think that insulting various groups of people has become a lazy way of getting laughs or attention

Men are insulted a lot in ads too. Fathers and husbands are often portrayed as clueless. If everyone is being insulted can we pick out one ad or another for criticism?
The sexualization of girls is different. It has gotten extreme and that can't be good for our kids or our society. I don't want my two middle school daughters internalizing images which objectify women and I especially don't want their male friends internalizing them. They are bombarded with the message that women are there for sex and are available for sex at anytime. And as strong as parents try to be in educating our own kids and giving them good values, they get bombarded by messages from the outside for more hours per day than their parents have them.

Is advertising more demeaning to women today than it was 10 or 20 years ago?
Advertising is far more demeaning to women today than it was 20 years ago. In the 1970's and 1980's, we had a national project where you could send post cards to companies who used offensive advertising. It said that they were the recipient of a bad ad award. I'm sure if we looked back at some of the ads we were talking about then, they probably wouldn't even register as offensive now.

Dove has recently launched ads with nude older women as part of their "Real Beauty" campaign. Several big cosmetic companies are using older women like Christie Brinkley and Diane Keaton in their ads. Is there also concurrent trend toward ads that promote more realistic images of women?
In some ways yes. Thank goodness for the Dove campaign. Nike did something similar with the ads that show girls running and jumping and being athletic. And maybe cosmetic companies have finally figured out that women over 50 are using these products.

So the kind of nudity Dove is using is OK?
I'm not a great proponent of using naked women to sell products, but it's refreshing for a change at least to see a normal-looking woman who's not emaciated being used to sell products. The whole idea of airbrushing and elongating the necks and legs and enlarging eyes in advertisements is very dangerous. They are creating a standard of beauty that's impossible to reach. Even the models don't attain it. Yet this is what our daughters aspire to and what our sons are expecting. By these standards women and girls are always inadequate and they're always buying the next beauty treatment trying to catch up, trying to be something they can't ever be.
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.

Double Standard?

Now what amazes me is the double standard here. Take a look at the two following Dolce & Gabbana ads that ran without any controversy. You're gonna tell me these don't imply gang rape as well?




So, what gives? You tell me....

And You Thought a Rabbit's Foot Was Odd...

Who needs a Rabbit's foot when you can have a Golden Lucky Poo?

"For those of you who don't know, the kanji for "lucky" in Japan is very similar to the shortened form of the Japanese word for "poo." Hence the brilliant Japanese played with the pun and the Lucky Golden Poo was um..born. But, contrary to popular belief, golden poo is lucky in more places than just Japan. It is also lucky in Ireland. Extensive research on the internet has shown without a doubt that the famed Pot o' Gold that Leprechauns protect is actually a Chamber Pot o' Gold (i.e. lucky golden leprechaun poo). And don't even get us started on the "Goose Who Laid Golden Eggs" story. Eww.

Anywho, we're now offering Lucky Golden Poos because we know how much everyone can use a little more luck in their lives. We recommend attaching them to your cell phone (as the Japanese do) for only lucky calls. You could attach it to your Wiimote for extra luck in gaming (Wii and Poo, together again!) You could buy the 2-pack and do both! Or you could keep one Lucky Poo for you and give one to a deserving friend. Because nothing says friendship than sharing Poo.

Each Lucky Golden Poo is about .5" in diameter and is covered with a golden metallic substance (except for some of the bottom, where the Poo meets the conveyor belt). "

So, need a little luck?
Buy yourself a Golden Lucky Poo here.

Apple TV is here. What's next? The ichannel?

State of the Art: New York Times
Apple TV Has Landed
By DAVID POGUE
March 22, 2007

In the technology world, conventional wisdom says that we’ll soon be saying R.I.P. for the DVD. Internet downloads are the future, baby. No driving, no postpaid envelopes. Any movie, any TV show, any time.

Only one problem: once you’ve downloaded the shows to your computer, how do you play them on the TV?

Now, there are people — at least 12, for sure — who actually watch movies right on their computers, or who wire their PCs directly to their TV sets.

The rest of us, however, are overwhelmed by cultural inertia. Computers are for work, TVs are for vegging out, and that’s final.

No wonder, then, that when Apple announced Apple TV, a box that can connect computers and TVs without wires, the hype meter redlined with millions of search-engine citations, a run-up in the Apple stock price and drooling analysts.

After many delays, Apple TV finally went on sale yesterday for $300, but there are plenty of companies trying to solve what you might call the “last 50 feet” problem. A couple of prominent examples: In addition to its game-playing features, Microsoft’s Xbox 360 ($400) performs a similar PC-to-TV bridging function; in fact, it even has its own online movie store. Netgear’s week-old EVA8000 ($350) also joins PC and TV, but adds an Internet connection for viewing YouTube videos and listening to Internet radio.

And so Apple TV has landed. How does it stack up?


Above: Apple's TV comes with an ipod-like remote

In looks, it sits at the top of the heap. Apple TV is a gorgeous, one-inch-tall, round-cornered square slab, 7.7 inches on a side. It slips silently and almost invisibly into your entertainment setup. (You can’t say that for the Xbox, which in comparison is huge and too noisy for a bedroom.)

The heartbreaker for millions, however, is that Apple TV requires a widescreen TV — preferably an HDTV. It doesn’t work with the squarish, traditional TVs that many people still have.

Apple defends its audience-limiting decision by saying that the future is HDTV; Apple is just “skating to where the puck is going to be,” as a product manager put it.

Apple TV doesn’t come with any cables. You’re supposed to supply the one your TV requires (HDMI, component video or HDMI-to-DVI adapter). They cost $20 at Apple’s online store.

So what is Apple TV? Basically, it’s an iPod for your TV. That is, it copies the iTunes library (music, podcasts, TV shows, movies) from one Mac or Windows PC on your wired or wireless home network to its 40-gigabyte hard drive and keeps the copy updated.



The drive holds about 50 hours’ worth of video or 9,000 songs; if your iTunes library is bigger than that, you can specify what subset you want copied — only unwatched TV episodes, for example.

At this point, you can play back videos, music and photos even if the original computer is turned off or (if it’s a laptop) carried away. (Photo playback requires iPhoto on the Mac, or Photoshop Album or Photoshop Elements on Windows.)

A tiny white remote control operates Apple TV’s stunning high-definition white-on-black menus, which are enlivened by high-resolution album covers and photos. You can see the effect at apple.com/appletv.

The integration of iPod, iTunes and Apple TV offers frequent payoffs. For example, if you paused your iPod partway through a movie, TV show or song, Apple TV remembers your place when you resume playing it on your TV. Cool.

Although only one computer’s files are actually copied to Apple TV, you can still play back the iTunes libraries of five other computers by streaming — playing them through Apple TV without copying them. Starting playback, rewinding and fast-forwarding isn’t as smooth this way, and photo playback isn’t available. But it’s a handy option when, say, you want to watch a movie on your TV from a visitor’s laptop.

All of this works elegantly and effortlessly. But there are lots of unanswered questions that make onlookers wonder if Apple has bigger plans for the humble Apple TV.

For example, it has an Internet connection and a hard drive; why can’t it record TV shows like a TiVo?

Furthermore, it’s a little weird that menus and photos appear in spectacular high-definition, but not TV shows and movies. All iTunes videos are in standard definition, and don’t look so hot on an HDTV.

And then there’s the mysterious unused U.S.B. port.

Still, if you stay within the Apple ecosystem — use its online store, its jukebox software and so on — you get a seamless, trouble-free experience, with a greater selection of TV shows and movies than you can find from any other online store.

But in Netgear’s opinion, that approach is dictatorial and limiting. Its new EVA8000 box plays back many more video formats, including high-def video; can play the contents of any folders on your Mac or PC, not just what’s in iTunes; offers Internet radio and YouTube videos; and works with any kind of TV. It can even play copy-protected music — remarkably, even songs from the iTunes store (Windows only).


Netgear's TV

Unfortunately, this machine (2 by 17 by 10 inches) is as ugly as Apple’s is pretty. Its menus look as if they were typed in 12-point Helvetica. The software is geeky and unpolished; for example, during the setup process, it says “Failed to detect network” if no Ethernet cable is plugged in, rather than automatically looking for a wireless network.

The Netgear model is also filled with Version 1.0 bugs, including overprinted, blotchy menu screens and incompatibility with Windows Vista. Netgear promises to fix the glitches, but concedes that it timed the EVA8000’s release to ride the wave of Apple TV hype.

The two-year-old Xbox 360 is far more polished. Like Apple TV, it can either stream photos, music and videos (Windows PCs or, with a $20 shareware program, even Macs) or play them off its hard drive.


Above: Microsoft's Xbox


What’s different, though, is that you can’t copy files to this hard drive over the network; you can download shows and movies only straight to the Xbox from Microsoft’s own fledgling online store. You can buy TV shows for $2 each ($3 in high definition), or rent movies for $4 ($6 for high def). Microsoft movies self-destruct 24 hours after you start watching them. (Apple movies cost full DVD price, but at least you can keep them forever.)

Note, too, that the Xbox’s primary mission — playing games — doesn’t always suit music and movie playback. It can’t get onto a wireless network without an add-on transmitter ($100 — yikes). You can’t control the speed of a slide show or fast-forward through a song.

And in general, the included game controller makes a lousy remote control. There are no dedicated buttons for controlling playback; instead, you have to walk through the buttons on an on-screen control bar to reach, say, the pause function.

And alas, these products can require a journey through the hell of home networking. The Xbox couldn’t get online at first, thanks to an “MTU failure.” A Microsoft techie in India named “Mike” claimed that my cable-modem company would have to make a change in my service. (He was wrong; a router setting had to be changed instead.)

When the Netgear EVA8000 couldn’t get on the network, I waited 30 minutes to speak to a technician, who announced that I’d shortly get a call back from a senior tech. Five days later, I’m still waiting. (The solution was to uninstall — not just turn off — Microsoft’s OneCare security suite.)

In the end, these early attempts to bridge the gulf between computer and TV perfectly reinforce the conventional wisdom about Apple: Apple TV offers a gracious, delightful experience — but requires fidelity to Apple’s walled garden.

Its rivals, meanwhile, offer many more features, but they’re piled into bulkier boxes with much less concern for refinement, logic or simplicity.

Put another way, these machines aren’t direct competitors at all; they’re aimed at different kinds of people. Microsoft’s young male gamers probably couldn’t care less that they can’t change the slide-show speed, and Netgear’s box “is for people who are more experienced,” according to a representative. “This is not for the random person.”

Apple, on the other hand, is going for everybody else, random people included (at least those with HDTV sets). And that, perhaps, is Apple TV’s real significance. To paraphrase the old Macintosh advertisement, it’s a computer-to-TV bridge for the rest of us.