# Direction of Advertising



## Darth Mikey (Dec 2, 2005)

What's up with the advertising around here lately?

The ads for Unorthodox Rogues, cheerleaders and whatnot have been featuring some scantily clad or provocatively posed models.

I'd post the banners here, but I just spent fifteen minutes trying and I'm technologically challenged.  Anyway, you've all seen them.

Am I the only one who is annoyed at this?

*A Note to the Game Companies:*

*Sell me your product based on it's merits.  Don't flash me a seductive smile, a pretty face or a nice pair of boobs and expect me to buy your stuff.*


----------



## Kelleris (Dec 2, 2005)

Heh.  I kinda feel the same way you do, though it clearly doesn't offend me so much.

Ironic, given that my recently-released book (see sig) is being bundled with ENP's _Chainmail Bikinis_ as a free add-on - spoofing off of The Le Games ads.


----------



## Crothian (Dec 2, 2005)

I like them, advertising is a tough gig and if a strategy works good for them!!


----------



## Darkness (Dec 2, 2005)

Hm, this is more of a Meta topic, so I'll move it to there.


----------



## Teflon Billy (Dec 2, 2005)

I'm all for it.

But then, I didn't getmy back up over Avalanche Press' risque covers either.

I like pretty girls. If they are in advertising I'm forced to look at, so much the better


----------



## Fenris (Dec 2, 2005)

The new Unorthodox Advertising banner is hysterical!


----------



## Morrus (Dec 2, 2005)

Darth Mikey said:
			
		

> *Sell me your product based on it's merits.  Don't flash me a seductive smile, a pretty face or a nice pair of boobs and expect me to buy your stuff.*





It's unfortunate, but that's bad advice to give to an advertiser.  That's _does_ sell their stuff, remarkably well.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 2, 2005)

Fenris said:
			
		

> The new Unorthodox Advertising banner is hysterical!




Thank you. I'm curious, though, if the hysteria perhaps enticed you to buy.

I'm considering creating another ad with spiked codpieces, but I don't know if it'll have the same appeal.


----------



## Darth Mikey (Dec 2, 2005)

Morrus said:
			
		

> It's unfortunate, but that's bad advice to give to an advertiser.  That's _does_ sell their stuff, remarkably well.




I know.  But that kind of junk has not been used on enworld before.  I like being able to check in at enworld no matter where I'm at, be it work, home, etc.  And I like not having to worry if my kids are looking over my shoulder.

Don't get me wrong, I heartily endorse photos of scantily clad and/or provocatively posed women.  Just not here.

Oh well.  Just figured I'd throw my opinion out there.


----------



## Kelleris (Dec 2, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> I'm considering creating another ad with spiked codpieces, but I don't know if it'll have the same appeal.




Spiked codpieces to sell _Fantastic Science_?  Okay, _now _I'm worried.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 2, 2005)

Honesty, Matt, part of the problem is that few of the 'cool' illos from the book lend themselves well to the narrow banner format. This thing is just a temporary promo until we put the book on sale at other vendors, at which point I'll swap it out for the 'this is awesome' banner that I'm working on.

Or perhaps, to riff off of Venture Bros., we could use the slogan, "It's Scientastic!"


----------



## Kelleris (Dec 2, 2005)

Nah, I actually rather like the boobie ad.  I just think spiky crotch-protection might be, shall we say, carrying the concept a bit far.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 2, 2005)

I like pretty girls as much as your average straight girl, but I was rather shocked to see the bare midriff and stringy panties on the Unorthodox Cheerleaders ad... was actually just going to post a thread about it just now... 

I always count on EN World to be work safe and grandma safe, I'd say that the Cheerleader ad definitely comes a wee too close to both of those for my taste.  It makes me second-guess logging on at work... which I suppose might be a good thing as I'd get more done.  

So - pretty much what he said:



			
				Darth Mikey said:
			
		

> I know.  But that kind of junk has not been used on enworld before.  I like being able to check in at enworld no matter where I'm at, be it work, home, etc.  And I like not having to worry if my kids are looking over my shoulder.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I heartily endorse photos of scantily clad and/or provocatively posed women.  Just not here.
> 
> Oh well.  Just figured I'd throw my opinion out there.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 2, 2005)

For those following this thread, you may want to check out this one as well:

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=156922


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Dec 2, 2005)

Kelleris said:
			
		

> I just think spiky crotch-protection might be, shall we say, carrying the concept a bit far.




Ah, go for it Ryan! If Blackie Lawless and W.A.S.P. could do it in the 80's why can't you do it in the 00's?   

*Pay no attention to the idiot in the tech room.*  - Spoony.


----------



## Fenris (Dec 2, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Thank you. I'm curious, though, if the hysteria perhaps enticed you to buy.




Unfortunately no. I have yet to buy a PDF. Limited gaming funds, limited uses for them and a bit of reservations over the process of buying them. heck the only thing other than Core I have bought is Grim Tales and Wulf has some awesome GT PDFs out there that I want, but that I can't quite bring myself to order.  :\


----------



## Cthulhu's Librarian (Dec 2, 2005)

> *POST AN IMAGE LIKE THAT AGAIN AND I WILL BAN YOU FROM THE SYSTEM!*  - Spoony.




MM, there was nothing obscene about that picture. It was twisted, but not obscene.


----------



## Arnwyn (Dec 2, 2005)

Darth Mikey said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who is annoyed at this?



I hope so.

I love the ads. Brilliant advertising, and the only ads so far that have actually made me take notice.

Smart. And easy on the eyes.


----------



## Michael Morris (Dec 2, 2005)

As I pointed out in PM I very likely overreacted - I only glanced at it for a second and my brain saw something that got me extremely scared I'd lose my new job. The training class instructor was standing behind me at that time so I didn't exactly have time to analyse the thing.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 2, 2005)

Darth Mikey said:
			
		

> Am I the only one who is annoyed at this?



nope. you are not alone.

i'm this close to turning off sigs and avatars now too.

edit: done. also removed images too. at least until this place returns to sane.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 3, 2005)

Darth Mikey said:
			
		

> *Sell me your product based on it's merits.  Don't flash me a seductive smile, a pretty face or a nice pair of boobs and expect me to buy your stuff.*




Ah, but if only they had the ability to sell you you, in particular.  But they don't.  They only have the ability to sell to the masses.  They can't make it personal, so don't take it personally.  A really big portion of your species just happens to respond well to such advertising.  Blame them.  The advertisers are only using what works.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 3, 2005)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Ah, but if only they had the ability to sell you you, in particular.  But they don't.  They only have the ability to sell to the masses.  They can't make it personal, so don't take it personally.  A really big portion of your species just happens to respond well to such advertising.  Blame them.  The advertisers are only using what works.




It may work... but that is not, at the very least, my concern.  EN World is supposed to be work and Gramma friendly and I don't think the ads in question fit either of those qualifications.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 3, 2005)

Queen D, if you dislike the ad I've run, let me know. I value your opinion and will take it down if you'd like.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 3, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Queen D, if you dislike the ad I've run, let me know. I value your opinion and will take it down if you'd like.



 It's not that I dislike it.  I think it's clever and sexy, however; I do question whether or not it is appropriate for EN World.  I don't find it offensive in the slightest, but I do wonder if it fits the Gramma and work safe idiom, that's all.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 3, 2005)

Okay then. I see your point. I'll have to switch from "sex sells" to "awesomeness sells."  Look for a new ad later this week.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Dec 3, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Okay then. I see your point. I'll have to switch from "sex sells" to "awesomeness sells."  Look for a new ad later this week.



 Hmmm - now, the ad in your .sig is okay I think... it's illustrated and really not very offensive at all... my gram wouldn't be up in arms about it - heck, even she (at over 80) can admit that boobies are funny... the ad I question specifically is the Unorthodox Cheerleaders ad that I saw running this afternoon up in the right hand corner of the site...

But - I don't like to make a stink...   If the mods think it's appropriate, I'm happy to listen to 'em.


----------



## diaglo (Dec 3, 2005)

RangerWickett said:
			
		

> Queen D, if you dislike the ad I've run, let me know. I value your opinion and will take it down if you'd like.



i dislike it for the same reasons Queen D states. but you can take my opinion with a grain of salt.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 3, 2005)

*grin* I always do.

Of course, what are you doing browsing EN World from work? You should be busy finagling with diseases that can kill us all.

Now if you'll excuse me, a patron has been waiting for about three minutes while I type this. I guess I'd better find out what his problem is. *rolls eyes*


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 6, 2005)

See, in my case, these ads encourage me _not_ to buy the products.

It's not that I'm offended. Far from it. I like scantily clad women as much as anyone.

It's that I assume if a product has to resort to sex and titillation to attract my attention, it's because it has nothing substantive to offer.

Now, I'm more forgiving of that on a banner ad than, say, the Avalance covers, since I know space is an issue. But it still enters my decision-making process.


----------

