Pentax has launched a new camera with the odd name *ist.
To announce their new gem they took out full page ads in Swedish photography magazine FOTO carrying the headline: "A perfect body with all the right accessories."
The image they choose to go with that headline is tarnishing their image..... Read more to see the ad.
When the professional female photographers in PFK (Pressfotografernas Klub) saw this ad they were outraged, and promptly put up a protest page where they collect signatures from female photographers.
"We're furious. Does Pentax mean that only men can/or want to use a camera? Us women are supposed to have a 'perfect body' and 'all the right accessories' and shall apparently only be in front of the camera rather than behind it. This is how we interpret the ad in the latest issue of FOTO, an ad where g-strings and a womens ass is supposed to sell a camera."
They go on, "The image isn't just degrading but also excluding women. With this image Pentax are excluding women both as photographers and as women. The image signals that we should only be in front of the camera, and only if we are young, skinny and pretty we suppose."
The 62 professional female photographers swear that they will never buy Pentax cameras or equipments again, and they doubt any hobbyist females photgraphers would buy Pentax either after this ad.
Congratulations to Pentax for making such asses out of themselves.
Easy spin - just rush production on a second ad where the roles are reversed (gal in the foreground, a himbo in his grunders standing before the mirror), plant it in the next issue and say that it was planned as a series all along.
I'm outraged because this single ad doesn't show a complete cross section of ethnicities, nor does it represent every single form of sexual orientation. How dare they! Where are the lesbian Eskimos and the Tasmanian eunichs, damn it!?
- reply
PermalinkCould blame it on terrible media buy...In playboy/a mens mag it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow (or anything else). Boring ad anyway, the body-pun is pathetic to begin with.
- reply
PermalinkTrue dat.
Besides, I always thought that Pentax sounded more like something for feminine hygiene than photography.
- reply
Permalink[laffin'] true dat too. ;))
- reply
PermalinkAnyone else amused at one of the photographers names in this context? Mona Loose.
- reply
PermalinkBoring ad. And a dumb move by Pentax.
- reply
PermalinkI'm offended by this ad, too! Why did they waste so much space on the himbo photographer? Surely they could've used that space better by placing a bikinied blonde! Harumph!
- reply
PermalinkWhat offends me is the terrible pun. Get it, "perfect body." Groan.
- reply
PermalinkMaybe I should be wearing my glasses, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like a Hanes Her Way ad (logo included) with a block of text and a camera on the bottom.
- reply
PermalinkThe saddest part about this terrible pun.
In Swedish, the camera 'body' is called a 'house'. Had the copywriter written the ad in Swedish (to run in a Swedish magazine, makes sense right?) they'd be stuck with some boring visual of a nice house with all the right accesories, picket fences, trees and the likes. Couldn't let that happen now could we, nooo lets write in English instead! I wonder if the ad is some english job that only had the body copy translated...?
- reply
PermalinkEeeeeeh? When the camera-body isn't even a "body" in Swedish this ad reaches new lows.
- reply
PermalinkIf this comes out of an advertising agency, the people behind it should be put down. For their sake and for ours. It should raise the average IQ on planet Earth by a few points.
And if this were the US, the pun alone should warrant a law suit and a damage claim for pain suffered.
cheers/me
- reply
PermalinkERK - the ethical advising group against sexist advertising in Sweden 'convicted' this ad with the motivation: The ad passes the line of what is acceptable and is insulting to women in general. The line that reads "A perfect body with all the right accessories" underlines the objectification of the woman in the ad. This goes against the ICC - International code of advertising practice. [.pdf here]
- reply
Permalink