IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rgfmxx/v6y2015i3p236-249.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Offensive advertising in the fashion industry: Sexual objectification and ethical judgments of consumers

Author

Listed:
  • Su Yun Bae
  • Nancy Rudd
  • Anil Bilgihan

Abstract

Facebook pages of two selected companies were examined: Dolce & Gabbana (D&G) and American Apparel (AA). The current study compares two brands with different target markets, products, and price points, both of which are known for their provocative and controversial advertising campaigns. This study aims to understand consumers' perceptions of the controversial marketing practices based on the two theories of sexual objectification and ethical judgments, using qualitative content analysis. Our findings confirm that sexual appeal is no longer a compelling factor in advertising for consumers. Consumers noted problems with branding strategies that have been used by AA, claiming such advertising harms their brand image. Considering the brand's financial struggles and media criticism aimed at it, it would seem wise for AA to cease its inappropriate marketing campaigns and focus on ethical marketing claims. It is time for the company to consider its role in social responsibility from both the ideological and utilitarian visions of ethics to balance social responsibility and profitability.

Suggested Citation

  • Su Yun Bae & Nancy Rudd & Anil Bilgihan, 2015. "Offensive advertising in the fashion industry: Sexual objectification and ethical judgments of consumers," Journal of Global Fashion Marketing, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 236-249, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rgfmxx:v:6:y:2015:i:3:p:236-249
    DOI: 10.1080/20932685.2015.1032317
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/20932685.2015.1032317
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/20932685.2015.1032317?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rgfmxx:v:6:y:2015:i:3:p:236-249. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rgfm .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.