![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogThis may be old to many of you, seeing as how (1) the majority of my readers are based in the US and (2) this is the sort of thing that generates ubiquitous round-the-clock coverage on American TV news channels. But it’s only just been brought to my attention. So ...
ITEM: ABC and Fox refuse to air an ad from Lane Bryant for Cacique lingerie on the grounds that it’s too sexy for prime time television.
Lane Bryant says, “Compared to what? Victoria’s Secret? Anything with Jerry Bruckheimer’s name on it?” and alleges further that the real “problem” is plus-size model Ashley Graham, who network executives think is too large for the American People.
ABC and Fox deny the decisions had anything to with Graham’s size. Fox eventually caves in (sort of), and the official documentation from ABC doesn’t specifically mention plus-size qualms. Consequently, some are suggesting Lane Bryant is hyping it up as a publicity stunt.
Maybe. But why not? Everyone knows that censorship is the best publicity there is, not least because it’s free. But I do think that if Lane Bryant decided to stoke up the controversy, the decision came up after the fact – I doubt the ad was conceived to be intentionally controversial enough to be banned, if only because the ad doesn’t really seem all that more provocative than the average VS commercial. At least not visually.
Of course, it does come with a nudge-nudge narrative. And it mentions “mom”. Maybe that’s it. Maybe they don’t want people to think about their mom’s lingerie standards.
Or maybe the ad really is too sexy for American TV Land, which has a history of freaking out from Televised Boobie Overdoses. And Janet Jackson is only a 36C. Graham’s 38D cleavage alone would probably put a third of the Midwest in the hospital.
I’m exaggerating of course. But I can testify as both a primarily heterosexual male and a connoisseur of fine lingerie that the Lane Bryant Cacique ad does way more for my pulse rate than any VS television ad I’ve seen in the last five years, let alone any "racy" scene in Desperate Housewives.
Here, I’ll prove it.
See?
So, you know, point taken.
FUN FACT: If you ask Kathie Lee Gifford, BTW, the actual problem with the Lane Bryant ad is that it promotes unhealthy marital values. But then we all know about Kathie Lee.
Make a dead man come,
This is dF
ITEM: ABC and Fox refuse to air an ad from Lane Bryant for Cacique lingerie on the grounds that it’s too sexy for prime time television.
Lane Bryant says, “Compared to what? Victoria’s Secret? Anything with Jerry Bruckheimer’s name on it?” and alleges further that the real “problem” is plus-size model Ashley Graham, who network executives think is too large for the American People.
ABC and Fox deny the decisions had anything to with Graham’s size. Fox eventually caves in (sort of), and the official documentation from ABC doesn’t specifically mention plus-size qualms. Consequently, some are suggesting Lane Bryant is hyping it up as a publicity stunt.
Maybe. But why not? Everyone knows that censorship is the best publicity there is, not least because it’s free. But I do think that if Lane Bryant decided to stoke up the controversy, the decision came up after the fact – I doubt the ad was conceived to be intentionally controversial enough to be banned, if only because the ad doesn’t really seem all that more provocative than the average VS commercial. At least not visually.
Of course, it does come with a nudge-nudge narrative. And it mentions “mom”. Maybe that’s it. Maybe they don’t want people to think about their mom’s lingerie standards.
Or maybe the ad really is too sexy for American TV Land, which has a history of freaking out from Televised Boobie Overdoses. And Janet Jackson is only a 36C. Graham’s 38D cleavage alone would probably put a third of the Midwest in the hospital.
I’m exaggerating of course. But I can testify as both a primarily heterosexual male and a connoisseur of fine lingerie that the Lane Bryant Cacique ad does way more for my pulse rate than any VS television ad I’ve seen in the last five years, let alone any "racy" scene in Desperate Housewives.
Here, I’ll prove it.
See?
So, you know, point taken.
FUN FACT: If you ask Kathie Lee Gifford, BTW, the actual problem with the Lane Bryant ad is that it promotes unhealthy marital values. But then we all know about Kathie Lee.
Make a dead man come,
This is dF
