Does Sex Sell in 2022?

Does Sex Sell in 2022?

Recently, Lewis Capaldi “took his clothes off and traumatized the general public all in the name of shameless self-promotion.” The conclusion was that sex sells. What does this mean for photographers who work in the advertising world? What does this say about the body of work you should have? Read on to find out.

You may have understood that Lewis Capaldi's ad was a sarcastic comment on the fact that sex still sells in 2022. While advertising became certainly less sexualized in the wake of the body positivity and rapid decline of Victoria's Secret era, there is still plenty of sex in ads. Photographers who work in the commercial sector need to understand the importance of this and include appropriate images in their portfolios.

Sex is a very sensitive topic, which is both a good and a bad thing. If done right, it can create wanted attention and hype around a campaign, but if executed poorly, sex can ruin a brand’s reputation. That’s why you have to toe a fine line between appropriate and not. The best advertisements provoke, but do not divide or cause a scandal.

Why Does Sex Sell?

Attention

There was a study done by The Journal of Sex Research saying that men think about sex 19 times a day, while women 10. These numbers can vary dramatically, but it still shows that on average people think about sex quite a lot. 

At the same time, it is a taboo topic. If used well, a sexualized image can spark conversations and even a small controversy. While far from Benetton’s shock advertising, sexy ads have been known to cause attention, good and bad.

Getting the viewer’s attention is key for any advertising campaign. The more people see the ad, the more people will buy the products. In the 2020s, this goes as far as meme culture, where an ad becomes a global sensation through social media and memes. Just think about the $999 Pro Display Stand. Ultimately, sex is shocking, which grabs attention, and then sells the product. 

Brand Image

A lot of brands sell the idea of having a product rather than the product itself. Think fashion: the actual value of luxury goods is next to nothing, but the status and the idea of having such a good makes it worth the price. Fashion sells a lifestyle: “buy this, get that” advertising model. Victoria's Secret and Tom Ford both have made shock sex advertisements in the past. The idea they sell to women is that by having their products, they will appear more attractive to their potential partners. Axe body spray may not be the best out there, but it sells very well amongst young people as it promises to “drive her crazy.” Believe it or not, there are people who genuinely think it’s a magic spell to attract partners.

Victoria's Secret is another example, in fact, a rather telling one. At its peak, it was selling the idea of sexy lingerie. It was one of the first brands to introduce lingerie as a seductive item of clothing, rather than a regular one. Sexy and Victoria's Secret became synonyms. The brand image created by sexual imagery drove the company to the very top. And then to the very bottom. The body-positive image of a woman, rather than a sexualized one, became very popular. New brands gained popularity. They sold the opposite of Victoria's Secret: comfort and inclusivity. They weren’t ugly granny panties either' they were nice-looking items for someone who didn’t look like one of the “angels.” The sexual image of Victoria's Secret led to its downfall.

What Does This Mean for Photographers?

A question with many answers. It mainly depends on which genre you’re working in. Sex may be a good idea to add to your portfolio if you’re looking to land fashion jobs. However, it is a bad idea if you want to shoot hospital ads. Let’s see which commercially viable photography genres are best known for sexualized imagery in their ad campaigns.

Fashion

As you may have well-realized from this article, fashion campaigns feature erotic in their images. Brands such as Calvin Klein, Tom Ford, Mugler, Diesel, and even Yves Saint Laurent.

While the trend for overly provocative ads has gone away after major scandals around fashion photographers such as Terry Richardson or Mario Testino, sexual themes still remain popular as can be seen in Thierry Mugler’s, or Schiaparelli’s latest shows and campaigns.

Depending on your personal taste, you should include (or not) sexualized images in your portfolio. But beware, sexy ads of the 2000s are no longer looked up to. Before creating your mood board, look at what kind of images are being shot now. There is little erotica in them, the focus is more on the clothes, and not lack thereof. Remember, naked women are not fashion photography if the image is about the woman rather than the fashion.  

Beauty and Perfume

Steven Klein’s latest Isamaya Beauty campaign pushed the boundaries of what is and isn’t allowed. Although, if Klein is shooting it, it is bound to push and cause controversy. This particular campaign is on the far side of sexual content in beauty and perfume advertisements. Kim Kardashian is known for her talent in creating ads with a little extra on the top. That was true in the following KKW Beauty ad.

There are other times when sexual content is not a good idea. Here are some examples:

Taken Too Far

There are instances where sex in genres where it is appropriate goes too far. Sean John’s “unforgivable woman” ad shows a rather disturbing scene of date rape. There is definitely a smart way to push the limits of what's allowed. Yet, you should stay within the legal framework for that.

The same applies to the Dolce & Gabbana “gang rape” ad, which shows several men and one woman on a tall roof in a concerning pose. It ran for a limited time in Esquire and a few other magazines, being immediately pulled. The critics as well as the general public said that the advert clearly refers to a "woman being raped." While their whole SS/2007 campaign featured groups of people in a salacious setting, it was the "gang rape" image that was the final straw. While there are other events that made the ad campaign worse, the bottom line stays the same: depicting sex in a questionable way will come back to haunt the brand. Understandably, the ad campaign brought bad publicity and sales plummeted. 

Closing Thoughts

Sex is an important element of some of the most successful ad campaigns. At the same time, it is also responsible for some of the biggest failures in advertising. Threading the fine line between pushing limits and offending is often difficult. That's why before planning any suggestive shoots, you need to spend a lot of time looking at what’s current. The attitudes to sex change every year, and you must keep up with the trend.

Log in or register to post comments
20 Comments
Daniel Medley's picture

Why does sex sell?

Human nature baked in over 2.4 million years of evolution.

Jacques Cornell's picture

And plenty of barkers taking advantage. The question for photographers is "Are you willing to achieve financial success by manipulating viewers' basest hard-wired and unconscious instincts?"

Daniel Medley's picture

With regards to photography, or any artform, ignoring human nature is a lack of honesty in my opinion. Recognizing that is not necessarily "taking advantage" in the negative sense.

Jacques Cornell's picture

There's a difference between "recognizing" and "taking advantage". A photographer has to ask him/her self, "What do I hope to achieve by deliberately triggering this automatic and unconscious response in my viewers?". It's all about motivation

Daniel Medley's picture

I don't agree with this. I think the better question is, "What do I hope to achieve with this photo?" If it's a sexual appeal, so what? Taking "advantage" of a base instinctual mechanism isn't necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. Appealing to hard-wired and unconscious instincts is really what it's about when it comes to art. It's why we can look at or listen to something and find that it sparks any number of emotional responses for a variety of reasons.

Jacques Cornell's picture

First, let me say that I respect what you're saying. However, I think you're missing my point, so let me explain.

I resent the cynical manipulation for profit that motivates much of the soft porn found in advertising as click bait or to sell products. "Does Sex SELL" is the headline and topic of the article. Use of sexual imagery in other arenas is another matter.

"'What do I hope to achieve with this photo?' If it's a sexual appeal, so what?"
My question: Sexual appeal FOR WHAT PURPOSE? For the photographer's own profile on a dating site, or to sell web hosting services? What ends is the photographer serving? And, more importantly, does the messaging the photographer is creating reflect his/her own values? It's too easy to slip down the easy path, paved with corporate dollars, that leads to hypocrisy and selling out, shaping the popular culture in ways that might not serve our children well.

Once in a while, it's important for each of us to realize that our work is actually our public voice and to consider whether what we're telling the world is really what we want to be known for saying. "Hey, look! Tits and ass!" is not what I want on my gravestone.

Daniel Medley's picture

Thanks for the clarification. A couple of questions if I may.

Does the use of sexually charged imagery in an ad campaign always equate to manipulation and exploitation in your opinion? Do you view the Calvin Klein/Obsession and Guess ad campaigns from, say, the 90s to the early 2000s as exploitative?

Is leveraging human nature in an ad campaign in and of itself always a negative? Or does that only apply to when it's sexual?

Please know that I hope that I'm not coming across as confrontational. I'm thoroughly enjoying the conversation.

Jacques Cornell's picture

I regard titillation in advertising as crass and cynically manipulative. Not only that, but I regard much of it as a cop-out on the part of the creator who's leaning on a cheap crutch rather than exercise real imagination and thought.

Daniel Medley's picture

Then what about manipulation in other areas of base human instinct? A couple that obviously come to mind are survival and acceptance by others. Is leveraging those base instincts acceptable?

I would argue that leveraging our baser human instincts to some degree is almost a necessity when it comes to advertising.

Jacques Cornell's picture

Images work on a subconscious level, no doubt. In fact, pretty much all communication does. My objection to most uses of sex in advertising are threefold.

1) It's a cheap and obvious stunt, an easy trick that obviates the need for persuasion, discourages conscious thought, and reduces the conversation to [slobber, drool].
2) It's a cynical manipulation for profit that preys on people's weaknesses.
3) It's often retrograde in its promoting of harmful social stereotypes.

If the message of the image were put into words, would we be as willing to accept it? I think not, because most folks' conscious minds are more enlightened than their libidinal instincts.

Example from above: "Guys, buy this perfume for your girlfriend, because if you do she'll be so aroused by it that she'll wrap her boobs around it (or some part of your anatomy) and let you give her a "shower".

Yeah, no.

As for the "necessity" for such tactics in advertising, we all have to draw our own lines. I chose not to go into advertising. But, even within the world of advertising, I think we all have seen examples of uplifting rather than degrading messaging.

Derrick Dean's picture

Ummm... is this a trick question?
Sex has sold since the beginning of time.
not my brand choice, but hey...

David Pavlich's picture

If you've been here at F-Stoppers for a while, you will have noticed that a lot of the articles have young ladies varying amounts of clothing is seductive poses. That's not by happenstance.

Black Z Eddie .'s picture

--- "a lot of the articles have young ladies varying amounts of clothing is seductive poses"

I'll have to disagree. There are not a lot. Very very few, actually. Per page, maybe there's 1 article that might be on the sexy side. To give context what a page looks like with the varying articles, here a couple of screen captures as of today:

{They are very long so I just posted a link}

Page 1:
(https://i.imgur.com/c3cHqbQ.jpg)

Page 2:
(https://i.imgur.com/1scFXvl.jpg)

Fritz Gessler's picture

yes, you are right! and that's why fstoppers is a rather boring site :))

Jacques Cornell's picture

I agree. Almost every week I see an image here where I think, "Well, that's a low blow."

Craig Greenslade's picture

I wonder where Terry Richardson is now...

Rex Larsen's picture

"The attitudes to sex change change every year you must keep up with the trend"
Fstoppers has long ago become The Onion of photography websites.

Jacques Cornell's picture

Throughout history, the most consequential photographers have bucked the trends, not slavishly followed them for a few ad bucks.

Matt Rennells's picture

There's a reason this is an old adage, "you can't have advertisements without _____ between the _____"