Cheap thrills
This the sort of saturation advertising I'm exposed to driving around town. Maybe I'm more sensitive to it given the nature of my job. Personally, I find this particular image cheap and sleazy. No class.
It's Brittany Spears, looking like a porn star, at the door of a hotel room. In the background lurks the shadowy image of a pensive young bloke, wet behind the ears. The caption under his baby face reads, Do you dare ? (click on image)
Mate, my advice to you would be, don't do it ! Or if you must, at least organise some protection, before engaging in any thrill seeking !



I'd rather look at her than listen. What is she advertising, though?
Posted by: Dirk Thruster | November 05, 2004 at 07:12 AM
Dirk, Ostensibly she's advertising a certain scent...
Tragically, as a role model for young impressionable girls the world over, she's offering, offering....I'd rather not say.
Posted by: adrian | November 05, 2004 at 04:14 PM
Funny, you say you object to the image, yet you disseminate it on your 'blog. There's a name for that: pandering.
Posted by: Greg | November 08, 2004 at 08:48 AM
Greg, According to my dictionary 'pandering' is defined as thus, "Go between in the affairs of love; procurer; or, to go too far in satisfying...a childs demands."
Not only have you chosen the wrong word to make a laughable point, but you've overlooked my words objecting to the image. Words which puts the image in context and presents the exact reverse arguement of that you claim. Dissemination ? No, pure disdain.
Indeed, how else could I have lodged an effective objection to a questionable image - via a word-picture ? Don't be daft.
However, applying the last meaning of 'pandering', I can understand your confusion. It must have been a dominant word in your upbringing which, given your other comments on this site, rankles still...
Posted by: adrian | November 08, 2004 at 04:05 PM
Adrian, if you can't make better use of your dictionary than that, you might as well put it away for good. Pandering, since Shakespeare's day at the latest, has been used to describe the activities of a pimp, i.e., a "procurer", the second meaning. Since you choose to define the Spears ad as pornographic yet publish it, you make yourself a pornographer. And I owe you a punch in the nose, you son of a bitch, for maligning my parents. What a nasty creep you are.
Posted by: Greg | November 09, 2004 at 11:11 AM
Holding things up to ridicule and inviting disdain is not pandering, whether you're a pimp, go-between or a spinless parent.
As a singer she makes a good porn star, nothing wrong with a bit of eye candy around the streets.
Posted by: Carl | November 09, 2004 at 06:02 PM
hehehehehe
I must say I had a similar reaction to this ad Adrian, in fact most of the ads displayed on these noshelter adholders are offensive to me one way or another.
Whats with Cathy Z Jones-Douglas standing in a puddle in a party frock ? very odd.
Posted by: randwickbelle | November 12, 2004 at 01:45 AM
Nah, I've missed that one randwickbelle, but I'll get a snap and post it. At the risk of being labelled a pimp !
Posted by: adrian | November 12, 2004 at 06:01 AM
Talk about "noshelter" adholders ... have you seen the one on the corner of Avoca and Frenchmans in Randwick ... totally destroyed ... not just glass but the entire kit'n'kaboodle.
Posted by: Julie | November 12, 2004 at 07:00 AM