The plus-size controversy: Fox & ABC versus Lane Bryant. A double standard or smart marketing?

You decide which it is.

It hard to decide what's going on in the latest advertising controversy.  If you haven't heard yet there's a curfufal that's drawn some distinctions in when and what's risque in television advertising, at least on networks for Fox and ABC.  Here's the deal:  A few days ago the censors at both of these networks refused to let Lane Bryant air it's latest ad campaign for it's line of clothes for full-size women during eight o'clock time period, early primetime.  

Here's the ad that the broadcasters refused...

Here's the logic of it all, say the broadcasters

The rationale for this decision goes something like this:  This is the heart of primetime's family hour, hence the the showing of too much "skin" is salacious and would be objectionable to many in the networks' audiences.  Presumably, the determination was guided by a decision rule that represented the combination of timing and amount of body exposure.  This means that the same ad [i.e., with the same amount of skin exposure] might very well be just dandy in a later time period, say, one hour later. 

While many might disagree with decision by ABC and Fox one could reasonably conclude that it's the networks' call to make and they made it--obviously--the way they did.  [In fairness, it is reported that Fox did permit the ad to, with some modifications, air during the last few minutes of American Idol.]  One needn't necessarily "see it" the way the networks did--but it's their call--and their right to make it.  

Hey, hold the phone--it looks like there's a double standard here.

But not so fast to let them off the hook.  What about past permission by these very same broadcasters to, when confronted with similar--arguably more risqué--commercials by Victoria's Secret...to let those ads run without discussion.  Here's an example of that kind of commercial, The Nakeds...

Is skinny better?  

Of course, the Victoria's Secret commercials show young, well-endowed but scantily-clad women nonetheless--sometimes hawking beer!  Seems like a clear double standard to me.  Others claim that it's the Bryant Lane models who by their full-size physiques simply dramatize the cleavage more, i.e., show more visually of what's so culturally charged--at least to networks censors.   

But wait--there's even more to consider in all of this!

But what if, as some argue, Lane Bryant decided as a matter of calculated strategy to push an ad it knew would not meet with broadcast standards, but which, instead, would generate tons of coverage in the media as a result of a network ban?  You know, the "poor Lane Bryant" news and publicity coverage that would require talk show hosts and news anchors to run the commercial--obviously for free--just to let viewers know about the controversy?

These networks are far from being paragons of modesty and circumspection--with the airing of Dancing with the Stars, Desperate Housewives, a variety of soap-operas, and other programming.  Thus, it is difficult to see their point for making a big deal on the ban of Lane Bryant during early primetime--but stranger things have happened.  

Matter of fact, there is a double standard here--in more ways that one!  

In any case, Lane Bryant's not crying at all--they've now got a special web-site up and running that makes the most of showing off their models and wares.  Come to think of it--they may end up thanking Fox and ABC for the favor of calling all the attention to the stricken commercials in the first place, exercising a news-buzz about double-standards, thus making Lane Bryant the sympathetic underdog. 

Looks to me like Lane Bryant can't lose any way the story unfolds.  In fact it's a double standard story in more ways than you first think:  Victoria's Secret had to pay for all of their exposures, but not Lane Bryant!  What a wacky world marketing is sometimes!
_______________________________________________________________

To make sure you get a "tweet" with every new blog, follow "keithmurrayblog" on Twitter!  Think others might like to read this?  Re-TWEET it to your followers with the SHARE ARTICLE tab below!

Comments

[Kathy]

I don't see it as a double standard. I agree that the Lane Bryant showed more, especially the breasts and the Victoria Secret one was quicker moving so it was not "so in your face". Lane Bryant should be happy they air when most of their customers would be watching. If a women has children to get to bed and stuff to do for the next day, she is not watching TV at the 8:00 time to sit and see the adds.

[sukki]

this is an interesting case.