please could I have some opinions on this advert?

[GoldenGreen]

www.harveynichols.com/hnedit/stores/whats-on-stores/leeds-whats-on-store/fashion-evening/

I find it very unpleasant and unsettling but would love to know what other people think

Nah, I did raise my eyebrows at the sweeping statement re MN posters too.

Harvey Nicks always has gross or strange ads. I think it's meant to be some kind of shock tactic. Their sale ads are always weird.

Ancient Patsy shops there. That's all I know.

@ Patsy

in fact that pic could be Patsy, throwing her ring up after 3 bottles of Bolly

And I'd rather have the Bolly than the Harvey Nicks own brand.

What did I misrepresent AF?

You re-worded what you actually said, choogirl

Because I'm on my iPhone in bed and cba to retype my post. Didn't think it was necessary.

Not wishing to appear Head Prefecty or anything, Choogirl, but you did say "Their campaign is targeting a different demographic to MN (young affluent females)," and then "MN has a wide demographic."

Just sayin'.

Thanks for the Louboutin info CHOOGIRL - I wouldn't have known that.

I am definitely not the demographic. I couldn't give a shit about fashion and personally think it is the epitome of misogynistic capitalism.

As for the ad - well it's a bit rapey isn't it?

I'm guessing Louboutins cost at least 100 quid a pop so headless laydee here, has claimed, and downed her free bottle of champers. She is now three sheets to the wind and offering her arse to the world.

But that is okay because at least we got to see the soles of her shoes (even if we didn't get to see her head).

Adverts with very groomed, conventionally attractive women, make me feel uncomfortable. They remind me of that Hustler image. Very objectifying.

Aww folks leave CHOOGIRL alone, she was trying to be helpful.

And she did help me, because I wouldn't have got why it was more important to show the soles of this woman's shoes than her head, otherwise.

Please don't make me do a hamburger stylee debate again though!

Adverts with very groomed, conventionally attractive headless women even.

Oops

Good call on the Hustler meat grinder image Beach. Also Terry Richardson putting models in rubbish bins.

I think it is correct to say that HN is aimed at a particular demographic of young affluent females who are interested in fashion whereas MN is not. Because MN is not aimed at anybody, it consists of whoever wants to be here and that encompasses pretty much everybody IME.

I don't understand the ad, so it fails on comprehension, but it does catch your eye. Both are required for successful advertising so really it does half a job. I cannot say whether or not its meaning is offensive or the pose necessary to the message because I don't understand it. I agree there is something cheap snd obvious about it though, and the upskirt shot is not necessary to show the shoes off. I don't find the skirt and heels themselves offensive per se because they are fashion items which is what the store is all about. They are not things i would choose to wear but I would not presume to judge others' motives for doing so.

It is a ridiculous ad and I want someone from HN on here pronto to explain why they're making women look like stupid arses.

There are a thousand (more creative)) ways to show the soles of the heels ffs.

Lets judge Harvey Nichols and the photographer though. Harshly.

And the designers who produce tiny tight clothes for women or those dreadful shoes, which do put women in danger of falling over and looking ridiculous.

I don't even think it is that memorable. It fades into another million crappy fashion advertising shots.

I cant see the add....says 'page not found'

ad

Try again, I just clicked and it's still there...

I'm getting page not found too now and I was able to see it earlier.