Why didn’t I think of that? Well, obviously because I didn’t know Zappos sold anything other than shoes. Well, and because there’s no really interesting idea here. And because I don’t work in advertising. But seriously, this works even if they only sell shoes (because the only thing they’d be wearing for you to see would be the shoes! And the naked body would get your attention.); and even though people are complaining about how salacious it all is, that only serves to give them free publicity on top of the ad campaign, so now they don’t have to run it as often, if even at all. (When are news outlets going to learn that if they don’t like something, they shouldn’t do a story about it, since it will just get everyone talking about it? Duh!)
I’m not going to spend a lot of time defending it, and it’s not really new or groundbreaking enough to bother deconstructing, since it’s just a naked person in an ad (again). But they’re mad about this? Really? They do realize that there are graphics covering this girl more than a bathing suit would, right? She could even be wearing a bikini under the graphics as far as we know. In fact, that’s probably how they did it. (Now that I read the article further than a couple of paragraphs, I find I was right. I’m from NYC, so I know they couldn’t have done it nude: It was either skimpy clothes or Photoshop.) So what’s the big deal? I don’t see why this is so risqué. It’s people’s own minds that make it dirty!
So here is the story, although it’s really not worth their bitching about it: there is far more explicit stuff on regular television shows than this! Oh, and in the newspapers! What hypocrites!:
