Thank you Sunrise.
I personally believe Audi is trying to appeal to women and fathers with young kids
Totally agree and I get that impression with all of the other pictures. With those I can see exactly what they're going for - fun, plenty of boot space, practical, but also something you can be proud to drive yourself without your family with you unlike some 'family cars' which are seen as boring.
Lone girl leaning on car below the height of visibility and eating a banana just really misses the mark for me. It seems out of place - nothing about it shouts 'family car', 'cool', 'safe', 'aspirational' or anything similar. Because it's so out of place I want to understand what it's doing there, and then you're back into my very long post above trying to understand the rationale!
But I can’t think that anyone would use appealing to peadophiles as a way to make money because at the end of the day that is all they want is to sell more cars to make more money. So surely out of all the people who had a hand in designing the advert someone would say hang on this looks sexual which could have an impact on our sales especially as our target audience is young families.
I don't think anyone is trying to say that the target audience was paedophiles and that they're trying to sell them the car too in order to make money. I think the point is that there is evidence more generally in society of attempts to normalise the sexualisation of children and the erosion of safeguarding boundaries, and that it's just as likely to be a person in power than the stereotypical creepy guy down the street you were warned about as a child.
It's the people in positions of power who should say 'no, that could be seen as inappropriate' that instead say 'sure, go right ahead' or that actively suggest something that could be seen as sexual to a paedophile. Making money is the job. If you can also normalise public perception of your own desires while you're doing your job then that's going to mean a lot more to you.
If they're in a position of power then they're less likely to be challenged full stop. If they're not, they can still rely on the 'of course I don't mean it like that, you're obviously a pervert' retort which we've seen on this thread. It's such a taboo subject that few people will want to put themselves under that spotlight in the work place. If the design or decision is subtle enough they can potentially slip it through under everyone's noses and get a secret thrill each time they see it. So where's the downside for them in trying? Even if it isn't actually intentional, if the subconscious desire is there it will certainly impact their decision making.
Over time, more and more images, articles, guidance etc slip through the cracks, and with that drip, drip, drip, it becomes more normalised in the public consciousness. That's what I'm worried about. That we aren't being robust enough with things that could be nefarious because we're so worried about wanting to give the benefit of the doubt, or concerned about being called perverted, inappropriate, or uptight for even thinking there could be something wrong with it, and that therefore we won't be able to stop more blatant attempts because by that point the Overton window will already have shifted. You have to try and think like the people you want to stop if you want any chance in understanding their actions and how to prevent them.
And yes, you'd think it would be picked up by at least someone. So either it was, and was encouraged (in which case, why?), it was and it was ignored (which is worrying), or it genuinely wasn't (which is baffling considering how easily so very many people can see it, or at least understand the potential for it). None of those are good options! If it was a small company I might have more sympathy, but a behemoth like Audi? The benefit of the doubt doesn't stretch that far for me. In my mind someone knew what they were doing, and either made an incredibly bad call and hopefully has learned a lot, or they are someone that shouldn't be allowed anywhere near children.